ELEMENTS OP LOGIC. COMPRISING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ARTICLE IN THE ENCYCLOPiEDIA METROPOLITANA : WITH ADDITIONS, &c. BT RICHARD WHATELY, D.D. M PRINCIPAL OF ST. ALBAN'S HALL, AND LATE FELLOW OF ORIEL COLLEGE, OXFORD. FOURTH EDITION, REVISED. LONDON: PRINTED FOR B. FELLOWES, LUDGATE STREET. 1881. ^^.%^ \ LONDON: PRINTED BY R. CLAY, BREAD-STREET-HILL. TO THE RIGHT REVEREND EDWARD COPLESTON, D. D. LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF, My dear Lord, To enumerate the advantages I have derived from your instructions, both in regular lectures and in private conversation, would be needless to those acquainted with the parties, and to the Public, uninteresting. My object at present is simply to acknow- ledge how greatly I am indebted to you in respect of the present Work ; not merely as having originally imparted to me the prin- ciples of the Science, but also as having a 2 iv DEDICATION. contributed remarks, explanations, and illus- trations, relative to the most important points, to so great an amount that I can hardly consider myself as the Author of more than half of such portions of the treatise as are not ^ borrowed from former publications. I could have wished, indeed, to acknowledge this more explicitly, by marking with some note of distinction those parts which are least my own. But I found it could not be done. In most instances there is something belonging to each of us ; and even in those parts where / your share is the largest, it would not be fair that you should be made responsible for any thing that is not entirely your own. Nor is it possible, in the case of a Science, to remember distinctly how far one has been, in each instance, indebted to the suggestions of another. Information, as to matters of fact, -^ may easily be referred in the mind to the person from whom we have derived it : but scientific truths, when thoroughly embraced, become much more a part of the mind, as it DEDICATION. y were ; since they rest, not on the authority of the instructor, but on reasoning from data which we ourselves furnish : they are scions engrafted on the stems previously rooted in our own soil ; and we are apt to confound them with its indigenous productions. You yourself also, I have reason to be- lieve, have forgotten the greater part of the assistance you have afforded in the course of conversations on the subject ; as I have found, more than once, that ideas which I distinctly remembered to have received from you, have not been recognized by you when read or repeated. As far, however, as I can recollect, though there is no part of the following pages in which I have not, more or less, received valuable suggestions from you, I believe you have contributed less to the Analytical Outline, and to the Treatise on Fallacies, and more, to the subjoined Dis- sertation, than to the rest of the Work. I take this opportunity of publicly de- claring, that as, on the one hand, you are Vi DEDICATION. not responsible for any thing contained in this Work, so, on the other hand, should you ever favour the world with a publication of your own on the subject, the coincidence which will doubtless be found in it with many things here brought forward as my own, is not to be regarded as any indication of plagiarism, at least on your side. Believe me to be, My dear Lord, Your obliged and affectionate Pupil and Friend, RICHARD WHATELY. PREFACE. The following Treatise contains the sub- stance of the Article '* Logic " in the Ency- clopcedia Metropolitana. It was suggested to me that a separate publication of it might prove acceptable, not only to some who are not subscribers to that work, but also to several who are ; but who, for convenience of reference, would prefer a more portable ^ volume. I have accordingly revised it, and made such additions, chiefly in the form of Notes, as I thought likely to increase its utility. I have taken without scruple whatever appeared most valuable from the works of J former writers ; especially the concise, but in general accurate, treatise of Aldrich : but while I acknowledge my obligations to my predecessors, of whose labours I have largely availed myself, I do not profess to be alto- v^ gether satisfied with any of the treatises that have yet appeared ; nor have I accordingly judged it any unreasonable presumption to viii PREFACE. point out what seem to me the errors they contain. Indeed, whatever deference an Author may profess for the authority of those who have preceded him, the very circum- stance of his pubhshing a work on the same subject, proves that he thinks theirs open to improvement. In censuring, however, as I have had occasion to do, several of the doc- trines and explanations of logical writers, and of Aldrich in particular, I wish it to be understood that this is not from my having formed a low estimate of the merits of the Compendium drawn up by the Author just mentioned, but, on the contrary, from its deserved popularity, — from the impossibility of noticing particularly all the points in which we agree, — and from the consideration that errors are the more carefully to be pointed out in proportion to the authority by which they are sanctioned. In the later editions I have introduced, in the Appendix, under the word '^ Person,'' an extract from the theological works of my illustrious predecessor in the teaching of yLogic, Dr. Wallis, Professor of Geometry in this University. I have also to acknowledge assistance received from several friends who have at various times suggested remarks and alte- 1>REFAC£. - iX rations. But I cannot avoid particularizing / the Rev. J.Newman, Fellow of Oriel College, ) who actually composed a considerable por- ( tion of the work as it now stands, from ( manuscripts not designed for publication, and who is the original author of several pages. Some valuable illustrations of the importance iXo( attending to the ambiguity of the terms used in Political-Economy, were furnished by the kindness of my friend and former pupil, Mr. Senior, of Magdalen College and of Lincoln's Inn, late Professor of Political- Economy at Oxford, and now, at King's College, London. They are printed in the Appendix. But the friend to whom it is inscribed has contributed far more, and that, in the most important parts, than all others together ; so much, indeed, that, though there is in the treatise nothing of his which has not undergone such expansion or modifi- ) cation as leaves me solely responsible for the whole, there is not a little of which I cannot v^ fairly claim to be the Author. The present edition has been revised with the utmost care. But though the work has undergone not only the close examination of myself and several friends, but the severer scrutiny of determined opponents, I am happy to find that no material errors have X PREFACE. been detected, nor any considerable altera- tions found necessary. Some small additions have, however, been introduced into the third and fourth editions ; and also a change in the arrangement, which I trust will some- what lighten the student's labour. I have removed into an Appendix a considerable portion of what was in the first two editions placed in Part I. (now Chap, i.) of the Compendium ; as being (though highly im- portant, not only from its connexion with the reasoning process, but for other purposes, yet) not necessary, after the perusal of the Analytical Outline, for the understanding of the Second and Third Chapters. It may be studied, at the learner's choice, either before or after the Compendium. On the utility of Logic many writers have said much in which I cannot coincide, and which has tended to bring the study into unmerited disrepute. By representing Logic /as furnishing the sole instrument for the discovery of truth in all subjects, and as teaching the use of the intellectual faculties in general, they raised expectations which \ could not be realized, and which naturally led to a re-action. The whole system, whose unfounded pretensions had been thus bla- zoned forth, has come to be commonly PREFACE. X3l regarded as utterly futile and empty: like several of our most valuable medicines, which, when first introduced, were proclaimed, each, as a panacea, infallible in the most opposite disorders ; and which consequently, in many instances, fell for a time into total disuse; though, after a long interval, they were established in their just estimation, and em- ployed conformably to their real proper- ties. Y To explain fully the utility of Logic is what can be done only in the course of an expla- nation of the system itself. One preliminary observation only (for the original suggestion of which I am indebted to the same friend to ^ whom this work is inscribed) it may be worth while to offer in this place. If it were in- quired what is to be regarded as the most appropriate intellectual occupation of MAN, as man, what would be the answer } The Statesman is engaged with political affairs; the Soldier with military; the Mathemati- cian, with the properties of numbers and magnitudes ; the Merchant, with commercial concerns, &c. ; but in what are all and each of these employed ? — employed, I mean, as men; for there are many modes of exercise J of the faculties, mental as well as bodily, which are in great measure common to us xii PREFACE. with the lower animals. Evidently, in Hea- soniiig. They are all occupied in deducing, well or ill, Conclusions from Premises ; each, ' concerning the Subject of his own particular ^ business. If, therefore, it be found that the process going on daily, in each of so many different minds, is, in any respect, the same^ and if the principles on which it is conducted can be reduced to a regular system, and if rules can be deduced from that system, for the better conducting of the process, then, it can hardly be denied that such a system and such rules must be especially worthy the attention, not of the members of this or that profession merely, but of every one who is V desirous of possessing a cultivated mind. To understand the theory of that which is the appropriate intellectual occupation of Man in general, and to learn to do that ivell, which every one will and must do, whether well or ill, may surely be considered as an essential part of a liberal education. Even supposing that no practical improve- ment in argumentation resulted from the ■^study of Logic, it would not by any means follow that it is unworthy of attention. The pursuit of knowledge on curious and interest- ing subjects, for its own sake, is usually reckoned no misemployment of time ; and is PREFACE. XUl considered as, incidentally, if not directly, useful to the individual, by the exercise thus afforded to the mental faculties. All who study Mathematics are not training them- selves to become Surveyors or Mechanics : some knowledge of Anatomy and Chemistry is even expected in a man liberally educated, though without any view to his practising Surgery or Medicine. The investigation of a process which is peculiarly and universally f the occupation of Man, considered as Man, / can hardly be reckoned a less philosophical c pursuit than those just instanced. It has usually been assumed, however, in the case of the present subject, that a theory which does not tend to the improvement of ) practice is utterly unworthy of regard ; and then, it is contended that Logic has no such tendency, on the plea that men may and do reason correctly without it : an objection which would equally apply in the case of Grammar, Music, Chemistry, Mechanics, &c., in all of which systems the practice must have existed previously to the theory. But many who allow the use of systematic principles in other things, are accustomed to cry up Common-Sense as the sufficient and only safe guide in Reasoning. Now by Common - Sense is meant, I apprehend, XIV PREFACE. (when the term is used with any distinct meaning,) an exercise of the judgment un- aided by any Art or system of rules ; such |an exercise as we must necessarily employ in numberless cases of daily occurrence ; in which, having no established principles to guide us, — no line of procedure, as it were, distinctly chalked out, — we must needs act on the best extemporaneous conjectures we can form. He who is eminently skilful in doing this, is said to possess a superior de- gree of Common-Sense. But that Common- ( Sense is only our second-best guide — that the rules of Art, if judiciously framed, are always desirable when they can be had, is an assertion, for the truth of which I may appeal to the testimony of mankind in gene- ral; which is so much the more valuable, inasmuch as it may be accounted the testi- mony of adversaries. For the generality have a strong predilection in favour of Com- mon-Sense, except in those points in which they, respectively, possess the knowledge of a system of rules ; but in these points they deride any one who trusts to unaided Com- mon-Sense. A Sailor, e. g. will, perhaps, despise the pretensions of medical men, and prefer treating a disease by Common-Sense : but he would ridicule the proposal of navi- PHEFACE. XV gating a ship by Common-Sense, without regard to the maxims of nautical art. A Physician, again, will perhaps contemn Sys- tems of Political Economy,* of Logic, or Metaphysics, and insist on the superior wis- dom of trusting to Common -Sense in such matters ; but he would never approve of trusting to Common -Sense in the treatment of diseases. Neither, again, would the Archi- tect recommend a reliance on Common-Sense alone in building, nor the Musician in music, to the neglect of those systems of rules, which, in their respective arts, have been deduced from scientific reasoning aided by experience. And the induction might be extended to every department of practice. Since, therefore, each gives the preference to unassisted Common-Sense only in those cases where he himself has nothing else to trust to, and invariably resorts to the rules of art, wherever he possesses the knowledge of them, it is plain that mankind universally bear their testimony, though unconsciously and often unwillingly, to the preferableness of systematic knowledge to conjectural judg- ments. There is, however, abundant room for the * See Senior's Introductory Lecture on Political-Economy, p. 28. Xvi PREFACE. employment of Common-Sense in the appli- cation of the system. To bring arguments, out of the form in which they are expressed in conversation and in books, into the , regular logical shape, must be, of course, the business of Common-Sense, aided by ' practice ; for such arguments are, by sup- position, not as yet within the province of Science ; else they would not be irregular, but would be already strict syllogisms. To exercise the learner in this operation, I have subjoined, in the Appendix, some examples, both of insulated arguments, and (in the last two editions) of the analysis of argumentative works. It should be added, however, that a large portion of what is usually introduced into Logical treatises, relative to the finding ^ of Arguments, — the diflferent kinds of them, s &c., I have referred to the head of Ttheto- X ric, and treated of in a work on the Elements of that Art. / It was doubtless from a strong and deli- berate conviction of the advantages, direct and indirect, accruing from an acquaintance with Logic, that the University of Oxford, when re-modelling their system, not only retained that branch of study, regardless of the clamours of many of the half-learned, but even assigned a prominent place to it, PREFACE, XVll by making it an indispensable part of the Examination for the first Degree. This last circumstance, however, I am convinced, has, in a great degree, produced an effect opposite to what was designed. It has contributed to lower instead of exalting, the estimation of the study ; and to withhold from it the earnest attention of many who might have applied to it with profit. I am not so weak as to imagine that any System can ensure great proficiency in any pursuit whatever, either in all students, or in a very large proportion of them : "we sow many seeds to obtain a few flowers \' but it might have been ex- pected (and doubtless was expected) that a majority at least of successful candidates would derive some benefit worth mentioning from their logical pursuits ; and that a considerable proportion of the distinguished candidates would prove respectable, if not eminent logicians. Such expectations I do not censure as unreasonable, or such as I might not have formed myself, had I been called upon to judge at that period when our experience was all to come. But that ex- [ perience has shown that those expectations have been very inadequately realized. The truth is, that a very small proportion, even of distinguished students, ever become h Xviii PREFACE. proficients in Logic ; and that by far the greater part pass through the University without knowing anything at all of the subject. I do not mean that they have not learned by rote a string of technical terms ; but that they understand absolutely nothing whatever of the principles of the Science. I am aware that some injudicious friends of Oxford will censure the frankness of this avowal. I have only to reply that such is the truth ; and that I think too well of, and know far too well, the University in which I have been employed in various academical occupations above a quarter of a century, to apprehend danger to her reputation from declaring the exact truth. With all its de- fects, and no human institution is perfect, the University would stand, I am convinced, higher in public estimation than it does, were the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in all points respecting it, more fully known. I But the scanty and partial success of the mea- i sures employed to promote logical studies is \ the consequence, I apprehend, of the univer- { sality of the requisition. That which must be done by every one^ will, of course, often be done but indifferently ; and when the belief is once fully established, which it certainly has long been, that anything which is PREFACE. Xix indispensable to a testimonial, has little or nothing to do with the attainment of honors,* the lowest standard soon becomes the esta- blished one in the minds of the greater num- ber ; and provided that standard be once reached, so as to secure the candidate from rejection, a greater or less proficiency in any such branch of study is regarded as a matter of indifference, as far as any views of acade- mical distinction are concerned. Divinity is one of these branches ; and to " this also most of what has been said con- ' cerning Logic might be considered as equally ■applicable; but, in fact, there are several important differences between the two cases. In the first place, most of the students who are designed for the Church, and many who \ are not, have a value for theological know- \ ledge, independently of the requisition of the schools ; and on that ground do not confine their views to the lowest admissible degree of proficiency : whereas this can be said of very - few in the case of Logic. And moreover, , such as design to become candidates for holy Orders, know that another examination in Theology awaits them. But a consideration, * In the last-framed Examination-statute an express declara- tion has been inserted, that proficiency in Logic is to have weight in the assignment of honors. b2 XX PREFACE. which is still more to the present pur- pose, is, that Theology, not being a Science, admits of infinite degrees of proficiency, from that which is within the reach of a child, up to the highest that is attainable by the most exalted genius ; every one of which degrees is inestimably valuable as far as it goes. If any one understands tolerably the Church- catechism, or even the half of it, he knows something of divinity ; and that something is incalculably preferable to nothing. But it is not so with a Science : one who does not understand the principles of Euclid's demonstrations, whatever number of ques- tions and answers he may have learnt by rote, knows absolutely nothing of geometry : unless he attain this point, all his labour is utterly lost ; worse than lost, perhaps, if he is led to believe that he has learnt something of a Science, when, in truth, he has not. And the same is the case with Logic, or any other Science. It does not admit of such various degrees, as a knowledge of religion. Of course I am far from supposing that all who understand anything at all of Logic stand on the same level ; but I mean, what is surely undeniable, that one who does not embrace the fundamental principles, of that, or any other Science, whatever he may have PREFACE. XXI C taken on authority, and learned by rote, <^ knows, properly speaking, nothing of that < Science. And such, I have no hesitation in saying, is the case with a considerable proportion even of those candidates who ob- tain testimonials, including many who gain distinction There are some persons, (pro- bably not so many as one in ten, of such as have in other respects tolerable abilities,) who are physically incapable of the degree \ of steady abstraction requisite for really ( embracing the principles of Logic or of any / other Science, whatever pains may be taken ( by themselves or their teachers. But there is a much greater number to whom this is a great difficulty^ though not an impossi- bility ; and v/ho having, of course, a strong disinclination to such a study, look naturally to the very lowest admissible standard. And the example of such examinations in Logic as must be expected in the case of men of 5 these descriptions, tends, in combination "!> with popular prejudice, to degrade the study altogether in the minds of the generality. It was from these considerations, perhaps, that it was proposed, a few years ago, to leave the study of Logic altogether to the option of the candidates ; but the suggestion was rejected ; the majority appearing to Xxii PREFACE. think (in which opinion I most fully coin- cide) that, so strongly as the tide of popular opinion sets against the study, the result would have been, within a few years, an almost universal neglect of that Science. Matters were accordingly left, at that time, in respect of this point, on their former foot- ing ; which I am convinced was far prefer- able to the proposed alteration. But a middle course between these two was suggested, which I was persuaded would be infinitely preferable to either ; a persua- sion which I had long entertained, and < which is confirmed by every day's observa- ? tions and reflections ; of which, few persons, ' I believe, have bestowed more on this sub- ject. Let the study of Logic, it was urged, be made optional to those who are tnerely candidates for a degree^ but indispensable to the attainment of academical honours; and the consequence would be, that it would speedily begin, and progressively continue, S'to rise in estimation and to be studied with (real profit. The examination might then, it was urged, without any hardship, be made a strict one ; since no one could complain that a certain moderate degree of scientific ability, and a resolution to apply to a certain prescribed study, should be the conditions of PREFACE Xxiii obtaining distinction. The far greater part would still study Logic ; since there would be (as before) but few who would be willing to exclude themselves from the possibility of obtaining distinction ; but it would be studied with a very different mind, when ennobled, as it were, by being made part of the pass- port to University honors, and when a pro- ficiency in it came to be regarded generally as an honorable distinction. And in pro- portion as the number increased of those who really understood the Science, the num- ber, it was contended, would increase of such as would value it on higher and better grounds. It would in time come to be better known and better appreciated by all the well-informed part of society : and lec- tures in Logic at the University would then, perhaps, no longer consist exclusively of an explanation of the mere elements. This would be necessary indeed for beginners ; but to the more advanced students, the tutors would no more think of lecturing in the bare rudiments, than of lecturing in the Latin or Greek Grammar ; but, in the same manner as they exercise their pupils in Grammar, by reading with them Latin and Greek authors with continual reference to grammar-rules, so, they would exercise them in Logic by Xxiv PREFACE. reading some argumentative work, requiring an analysis of it on Logical principles. These effects could not indeed, it was acknowledged, be expected to show them- selves fully till after a considerable lapse of time ; but that the change would begin to appear, (and that, very decidedly) within three or four years, was confidently antici- pated. To this it was replied, that it was most de- sirable that no one should be allowed to obtain the Degree of B. A. without a know- ledge of Logic. This answer carries a plau- sible appearance to those unacquainted with the actual state of the University ; though in fact it is totally irrelevant. For it goes on the supposition, that hitherto this object has been accomplished ; — that every one who passes his examination does possess a know- ledge of Logic ; which is notoriously not the fact, nor ever can be, without some impor- tant change in some part of our system. The question therefore is, not, as the above ob- jection would seem to imply, whether a real, profitable knowledge of Logic shall be strictly required of every candidate for a Degree, (for this in fact never has been done) but \ whether, in the attempt to accomplish this by requiring the form of a logical examina- PREFACE. XXV tion from every candidate without exception, we shall continue to degrade the Science, and to let this part of the examination be regarded as a mere form, by many who might otherwise have studied Logic in earnest, and with advantage : — whether the great majority of candidates, and those too of a more pro- mising description, shall lose a real and im- portant benefit, through the attempt, (which, after all, ex[)erience has proved to be a vain attempt) to comprehend in this benefit a very small number, and of the least promising. Something of an approach to the proposed alteration, was introduced into the Examina- tion-statute passed in 1830; in which, per- mission is granted to such as are candidates merely for a testimonial, to substitute for Logic a portion of Euclid. I fear, however, that little or nothing will be gained by this ; unless indeed the Examiners resolve to make the examinations in Logic far stricter than those in Euclid. For since every one who is capable of really understanding Euclid must be also capable of Logic, the alteration does not meet the case of those whose in- aptitude for Science is invincible ; and these are the very description of men whose (so called) logical-examinations tend to depress the Science. Those few who really are XXvi PREFACE. physically incapable of scientific reasoning, and the far greater number who fancy them- selves so, or who at least will rather run a risk than surmount their aversion and set themselves to study in earnest, — all these will be likely, when the alternative is pro- posed, to prefer Logic to Euclid ; because in the latter, it is hardly possible, at least not near so easy as in Logic, to present the sem- blance of preparation by learning questions and answers by rote : — in the cant phrase of undergraduates, by getting crammed. Ex- perience has proved this, in the case of the Responsive-examinations, where the alterna- tive of Logic or Euclid has always been pro- posed to the candidates; of whom those most averse to Science, or incapable of it, are almost always found to prefer Logic* The determination may indeed be formed, and acted on from henceforth, that all who do in reality know nothing, properly speak- ing, of any Science, shall be rejected : all I know is, that this has never been the case hitherto. Still, it is a satisfaction to me, that atten- tion has been called to the evil in question, * Since this was written, the experiment has been tried. In the Examination-list for the present Term (Easter, 1831) of 125 candidates who did not aspire to the higher classes, twenty- five present Euclid for their examination, and one hundred Logic ! PREFACE. XXVii and an experimental measure adopted for its abatement. A confident hope is thus af- forded, that in the eivent (which I much fear) ^, of the failure of the experiment^ some other more effectual measure may be resorted to. I am sensible that many may object, that this is not the proper place for such remarks as the foregoing : what has the public at large, they may say, to do with the statutes of the University of Oxford ? To this it might fairly be replied, that not only all who think of sending their sons or other near re- latives to Oxford, but all likewise who are placed under the ministry of such as have been educated there, are indirectly con- cerned, to a certain degree, in the system there pursued. But the consideration which had the chief share in inducing me to say what I have, is, that the vindication of Logic ^ from the prevailing disregard and contempt \ under which it labours, would have been ^ altogether incomplete without it. For let it / be remembered that the science is judged of ( by the Public in this country, in a very great < degree, from the specimens displayed, and > the reports made, by those whom Oxford sends forth. Every one, on looking into the University Calendar or Statute Book, feels himself justified in assuming, that whoever XXvill PREFACE. has graduated at Oxford must be a Logician : not, indeed, necessarily a first-rate Logician; but such as to satisfy the public examiners that he has a competent knowledge of the Science. Now, if a very large proportion of these persons neither are, nor think them- selves at all benefited by their (so called) logical education, and if many of them treat the study with contempt, and represent it as a mere tissue of obsolete and empty jargon, which it is a mere waste of time to attend to, let any one judge what conclusions respect- ing the utility of the study, and the wisdom , of the University in upholding it, are likely V to be the result. That prejudices so deeply-rooted as those I have alluded to, and supported by the au- thority of such eminent names, especially that of Locke, and (as is commonly, though not very correctly supposed) Bacon, should be overthrown at once by the present trea- tise, I am not so sanguine as to expect ; but if I have been successful in refuting some of the most popular objections, and explaining some principles which are in general ill- ; understood, it may be hoped that in time c^just notions on the subject may gain ground : i especially if, as I have some reason to hope. PREFACE. XXix a more able advocate of the same cause should be induced to step forward. It may be permitted me to mention, that as I have addressed myself to various classes of students, from the most uninstructed tyro, // to the furthest-advanced Logician, and have touched accordingly both on the most ele- mentary principles, and on some of the most remote deductions from them, it must be expected that readers of each class will find some parts not well calculated for them. Some explanations will appear to the one too simple and puerile ; and for another class, some of the disquisitions will be at first too abstruse. If to each description some portions are found interesting, it is as much as I can expect. With regard to the style, I have con- ^c*^*^ sidered perspicuity not only, as it always '^"^ must be, the first point, but as one of such paramount importance in such a subject, as to justify the neglect of all others. Prolixity ^^ of explanation, — homeliness in illustration, — "^ and baldness of expression, I have regarded as blemishes not worth thinking of, when any- thing was to be gained in respect of clearness. Of the correctness of the fundamental doctrines maintained in the work, I may be allowed to feel some confidence ; not so ^' - -^ XXX PREFACE. much from the length of time (about eigh- ^} teen years) that I have been more or less occupied with it, enjoying at the same time the advantage of frequent suggestions and corrections from several judicious friends, as from the nature of the subject. In works of taste, an author cannot be sure that the judgment of the public will coincide with his ! own ; and if he fail to give pleasure, he fails of his sole or most appropriate object. But in the case of truths which admit of Scientific ^ demonstration, it is possible to arrive by reasoning at as full an assurance of the just- ness of the conclusions established, as the imperfection of the human faculties will admit; and experience, accompanied with attentive observation, and with repeated trials of various methods, may enable one long accustomed to tuition, to ascertain with considerable certainty what explanations are the best comprehended. Many parts of the detail, however, may probably be open to objections ; but if (as experience now autho- rizes me the more confidently to hope) no errors are discovered, which materially affect the substantial utility of the work, but only such as detract from the credit of the author, the object will have been attained which I ought to have had principally in view. PREFACE. XX xi No credit, I am aware, is given to an author's own disclaimer of personal motives, and profession of exclusive regard for public utility; since even sincerity cannot, on this point, secure him from deceiving himself; but it may be allowable to observe that one whose object was the increase of his repu- tation as a writer, could hardly have chosen a subject less suitable for his purpose than the present. Though the interest in it has greatly exceeded what I had anticipated, it still can hardly be called a popular subject, or one likely to become so, in any consi- derable degree at least during the lifetime of a writer of the present day. Ignorance, fortified by prejudice, opposes its reception, even in the minds of those who are consi- dered as both candid and well-informed. Besides that a great majority of readers not only know not what Logic is, but have no curiosity to learn, the greater part of those who imagine that they do know, are wedded to erroneous notions of it. The multitude never think of paying any attention to the correctness of their reasoning ; and those who do, are usually too confident that they are already completely successful in this point, to endure the thought of seeking instruction upon it. XXXii PREFACE. And as, on the one hand, a large dass of modern philosophers may be expected to raise a clamour against '^ obsolete preju- dices;" '' bigoted devotion to the decrees of Aristotle;" '^ confining the human mind in the trammels of the Schoolmen,'' &c., so on the other hand, all such as really are thus bigoted to everything that has been long established, merely because it has been long established, will be ready to exclaim against the presumption of an author, who presumes to depart in several points from the track of his predecessors. There is another circumstance, also, which tends materially to diminish the credit of a writer on this and some other kindred sub- jects. We can make no discoveries of striking novelties: the senses of our readers are not struck, as with the return of a Comet which had been foretold, or the extinction of a taper in carbonic -acid gas : the materials we work upon are common and familiar to all, and, therefore, supposed to be well understood by all. And not only is any one's deficiency in the use of these materials, such as is generally unfelt by himself, but when it is removed by satisfactory explana- tions — when the notions, which had been perplexed and entangled, are cleared up by PREFACE. XXxiii the introduction of a few simple and appa- / rently obvious principles, he will generally J forget that any explanation at all was needed, f and consider all that has been said as mere truisms, which even a child could supply to himself. Such is the nature of the funda- y mental principles of a Science — they are so fully implied in the most evident and well- known truths, that the moment they are fully embraced, it becomes a difficulty to conceive that we could ever have been not ( aware of them. And hence, the more simple, clear, and obvious any principle is ren- dered, the more likely is its exposition to elicit those common remarks, " of course ! of course!" *^no one could ever doubt that;" *^ this is all very true, but there is nothing new brought to light ; — nothing that was not familiar to every one;" *^ there needs no ghost to tell us that." I am convinced that a verbose, mystical, and partially obscure way of writing on such a subject, is the most clikely to catch the attention of the multitude. The generality verify the observation of Tacitus, '^ omne ignotum pro mirifico :" and when anything is made very plain to them, are apt to fancy that they knew it already; \ so that the explanations of scientific truths ] are likely, for a considerable time at least. XXxiv PREFACE. to be, by most men, underrated the more, tlie more perfectly they accomplish their object. A very slow progress, therefore, towards popularity is the utmost that can be expected ) for such a treatise as I have endeavoured to ( make the present. I have felt myself bound, however, not only as a member of Society, but more especially as a minister of the Gospel, to use my endeavours towards pro- moting an object which to me appears highly important, and what is much more, whose importance is appreciated by very few be- sides. The cause of Truth universally, and not least, of rehgious Truth, is benefited by every thing that tends to promote sound reasoning and facilitate the detection of fallacy. The adversaries of our Faith would, I am convinced, have been on many occa- sions more satisfactorily answered, and would have had fewer openings for cavil, had a thorough acquaintance with Logic been a more common qualification than it is. In lending my endeavours, therefore, whether Swith greater or less success, towards this ob- ject, I trust that I am neither uselessly nor unsuitably employed. y I have seen in several writers, a sort of sneering allusions to '^ Logic ;" and also to ^' Truth," (the latter, in reference, I presume, PREFACE. XXXV to an Essay on that subject) which I cannot but feel to be consolatory and even flattering. If such expressions had been accompanied by an attempt to refute the fundamental prin- ciples I have endeavoured to maintain, it would have been understood that such im- plied censure was meant to be directed against false pretensions. But as it is, such writers seem to admit that it is Truth as Truth, and Logical reasoning, as such, that they dislike. And certainly any who wish to propagate errors, or to defend abuses, are perfectly right in disliking the cultivation of Logic, though they may not be prudent in avowing this feeling. The clear day-light could not be more unwelcome to the " Chil- f dren of the Mist,'' than the establishment and diffusion of accurate principles of rea- soning, to the advocates of what they are aware is unsound. Many indeed whose opinions on various points are opposed, are sincerely convinced of the truth of what they maintain : but all of these ought to feel a full confidence that truth, wherever it may lie, will be best ascer- tained and best supported, by a system of J sound reasoning. Those who are engaged in, or designed for the Sacred Ministry, and all others who are s XXXVi PREFACE. sensible that the cause of true Religion is not a concern of the Ministry alone, should re-* ) member that this is no time to forego any of 5 the advantages which that cause may derive ) from an active and judicious cultivation of the faculties. Among the enemies of Chris- tianity in the present day, are included, if I mistake not, a very different description of ^^ persons from those v^ho were phiefly to be / met with a century, or even half a century ^ ago : what were called " men of wit and pleasure about town ;" — ignorant, shallow, flippant declaimers, or dull and powerless pretenders to Philosophy. Among the ene- mies of the Gospel now, are to be found men not only of learning and ingenuity, but of cultivated argumentative powers^ and not unversed in the principles of Logic. If the advocates of our Religion think proper to disregard this help, they will find, on careful inquiry, that their opponents do not. And let them not trust too carelessly to the strength of their cause : Truth will, indeed, prevail, where all other points are nearly equal ; but it may suffer a temporary discomfiture, if hasty assumptions, unsound arguments, and vague and empty declamation, occupy the ^ place of a train of close, accurate, and lumi- 4nous reasoning. ..-'' ^j^ PREFACE. XXXVU if f It is not, however, solely or chiefly for polemical purposes that the cultivation of the reasoning faculty is desirable ; in per- suading, and investigating, in learning, or (teaching, — in all the multitude of cases in ^/Which it is our object to arrive at just con- ) elusions, or to lead others to them, it is most important. A knowledge of logical rules will not indeed supply the want of other knowledge ; nor was it ever proposed, by any one who really understood this Science, ^ to substitute it for any other; but it is no Pless true that no other can be substituted for I this : that it is valuable in every branch of \ study; and that it enables us to use the ^ knowledge we possess to the greatest advan- tage. It is to be hoped, therefore, that , those academical bodies, who have been wise \ enough to retain this Science, will, instead of ) being persuaded to abandon it, give their ] attention rather to its improvement and more effectual cultivation. CONTENTS. PAOR Introduction . 1 BOOK I. Analytical Outline of the Science .18 BOOK II. Synthetical Compendium 54 Chap. I. — Of the Operations of the Mind, and of Terms ib. Chap. II. — Of Propositions 61 Chap. III.— Of Arguments 73 Chap. IV.— Supplement to Chap. Ill 95 Chap, v.— Supplement to Chap. 1 122 BOOK III. Of Fallacies 146 BOOK IV. Dissertation on the Province of Reasoning 226 Chap. I.— Of Induction 228 Chap. II.— On the Discovery of Truth . ...... 235 Chap. III.— Of Inference and Proof 266 Chap. IV.— Of Verbal and Real Questions . . . .275 Chap, v.— Of Realism 282 Xl CONTENTS. Appendix. PAGE No. I. — On certain Terms which are peculiarly liable to be used ambiguously 298 No. II. — Miscellaneous Examples for the exercise of Learners 358 No. III. — Example of Analysis 374 Index , . . , . 385 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. INTRODUCTION. Logic, in the most extensive sense which Definition or Logic. the name can with propriety be made to bear, may be considered as the Science, and also as the Art, of Reasoning. It investigates the principles on which argumentation is con- ducted, and furnishes rules to secure the mind from error in its deductions. Its most appro- priate office, however, is that of instituting an analysis of the process of the mind in Reasoning; and in this point of view it is, as has been stated, strictly a Science : while, considered in reference to the practical rules above men- tioned, it may be called the Art of Reasoning. This distinction, as will hereafter appear, has been overlooked, or not clearly pointed out by most writers on the subject ; Logic having been in general regarded as merely an Art; and its claim to hold a place among the Sciences having been expressly denied. 2 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. PrevaiiiDg Consideiing how early Logic attracted the LoTc''.''"" attention of philosophers, it may appear sur- prising that so little progress should have been made, as is confessedly the case, in developing its principles, and perfecting the detail of the system ; and this circumstance has been brought forward as a proof of the barrenness and futility of the study. But a similar argument might have been urged with no less plausibility, at a period not very remote, against the study of Natural Philosophy; and, very'recently, against that of Chemistry. No science can be expected to make any considerable progress, which is not cultivated on right principles. Whatever may be the inherent vigour of the plant, it will nei- ther be flourishing nor fruitful till it meet with a suitable soil and culture : and in no case is the remark more applicable than in the present ; the greatest mistakes having always prevailed respecting the nature of Logic, and its pro- vince having in consequence been extended by many writers to subjects with which it has no proper connexion. Indeed, with the exception of Aristotle, (who is himself not entirely ex- ,; empt from the errors in question,) hardly a \ writer on Logic can be mentioned who has ^ clearly perceived, and steadily kept in view (throughout, its real nature and object. Before his time, no distinction was drawn between the science of which we are speaking, and that INTRODUCTION. 3 which is now usually called Metaphysics; a circumstance which alone shows how small was the progress made in earlier times. Indeed, those who first turned their attention to the subject, hardly thought of inquiring into the process of Reasoning itself, but confined them- ( selves almost entirely to certain preliminary {points, the discussion of which is (if logically (considered) subordinate to that of the main (inquiry. Zeno the Eleatic, whom most accounts re- Eariy writer* . . , on Logic. present as the earliest systematic writer on the ( subject of Logic, or, as it was then called, \ Dialectics, divided his work into three parts ; ) the first of which (upon consequences) is cen- Xsured by Socrates [Plato, Parmen,'] for ob- scurity and confusion. In his second part, ^ however, he furnished that interrogatory me- l thod of disputation [epcoTrjacs] which Socrates '^ adopted, and which has since borne his name. The third part of his work was devoted to what may not be improperly termed the art of ( wrangling [epLarcKr)'], which supplied the dis- < putant with a collection of sophistical ques- 5 tions, so contrived, that the concession of some ') point which seemed unavoidable, immediately involved some glaring absurdity. This, if it is to be esteemed as at all falling within the province of Logic, is certainly not to' be re- ^^garded (as some have ignorantly or heedlessly b2 . 4 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. represented it) as its principal or proper busi- ness. The Greek philosophers generally have unfortunately devoted too much attention to it; but we must beware of falling into the vulgar error of supposing the ancients to have regarded as a serious and intrinsically impor- tant study, that which in fact they considered as an ingenious recreation. The disputants diverted themselves in their leisure hours by making trial of their own and their adversary's acuteness, in the endeavour mutually to per- plex each other with subtle fallacies; much in the same way as men amuse themselves with propounding and guessing riddles, or with the game of chess; to each of which diversions the sportive disputations of the ancients bore much resemblance. They were closely analo- gous to the wrestling and other exercises of the Gymnasium; these last being reckoned con- ducive to bodily vigour and activity, as the former were to habits of intellectual acuteness : ^. but the immediate object in each was a sportive, not a serious contest; though doubt- less fashion and emulation often occasioned an undue importance to be attached to suc- cess in each. zeno. Zeno, then, is hardly to be regarded as any further a logician than as to what respects his erotetic method of disputation ; a course of n/ argument constructed on this principle being INTRODUCTION. 5 . properly an hypothetical Sorites, which may easily be reduced into a series of syllogisms. To Zeno succeeded Euclid of Meejara, and Eucud an«i *-' Antisthenes. Antisthenes ; both pupils of Socrates. The former of these prosecuted the subject of the third part of his predecessor's treatise, and is said to have been the author of many of the fallacies attributed to the Stoical school. Of the writings of the latter nothing certain is known; if, however, we suppose the above- mentioned sect to be his disciples in this study, and to have retained his principles, he cer- tainly took a more correct view of the subject than Euclid. The Stoics divided all XeKra, every thing that could be said, into three classes : 1st, the simple Term ; 2d, the Pro- position ; 3d, the Syllogism ; viz, the hypo- thetical ; for they seem to have had little notion of a more rigorous analysis of argu- ment than into that familiar form. We must not here omit to notice the merits of Archytas, to whom we are indebted for the Archytas. doctrine of the Categories. He, however, (as well as the other writers on the subject) appears to have had no distinct view of the proper object and just limits of the science of Logic ; but to have blended with it metaphysical discussions not strictly connected with it, and to have dwelt on the investigation of the nature of terms and propositions, without 6 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. maintaining a constant reference to the prin- ciples of Reasoning; to which all the rest should be made subservient. Aristotle. The state, then, in which Aristotle found the science (if indeed it can properly be said to have existed at all before his time) appears to have been nearly this : the division into [ Simple Terms, Propositions, and Syllogisms, / had been slightly sketched out ; the doctrine \ of the Categories, and perhaps that of the I Opposition of propositions, had been laid / down ; and, as some believe, the analysis of \ Species into Genus and Differentia, had been { introduced by Socrates. These, at best, were rather the materials of the system, than the system itself; the foundation of which indeed he distinctly claims the merit of having laid, and which remains fundamentally the same as he left it. It has been remarked, that the logical system is one of those few theories which have been begun and perfected by the same individual. The history of its discovery, as far as the main principles of the science are concerned, pro- perly commences and ends with Aristotle; and this may perhaps in part account for the sub- sequent perversions of it. The brevity and simplicity of its fundamental truths (to which point indeed all real science is perpetually tending) has probably led many to suppose ( INTRODUCTION. 7 that something much more complex, abstruse, and mysterious, remained to be discovered. The vanity, too, by which all men are prompted unduly to magnify their own pursuits, has led unphilosophical minds, not in this case alone, but in many others, to extend the boundaries of their respective sciences, not by the patient development and just application of the prin- ciples of those sciences, but by wandering into irrelevant subjects. The mystical employment of numbers by Pythagoras, in matters utterly foreign to arithmetic, is perhaps the earliest instance of the kind. A more curious and important one is the degeneracy of Astronomy into judicial Astrology ; but none is more striking than the misapplication of Logic, by those who have treated of it as ''the art of rightly employing the rational faculties," or who have intruded it into the province of Na- tural Philosophy, and regarded the Syllogism , as an engine for the investigation of nature : j while they overlooked the boundless field that I was before them within the legitimate limits of the science; and perceived not the importance and difficulty of the task, of completing and properly filling up the masterly sketch before |them. The writings of Aristotle were not only abso^ lutely lost to the world for about two centuries, but seem to have been but little studied for a 8 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. long time after their recovery. An art, how- ever, of Logic, derived from the principles traditionally preserved by his disciples, seems \ to have been generally known, and to have ( been employed by Cicero in his philosophical / works ; but the pursuit of the science seems to I have been abandoned for a long time. Early s in the Christian era, the Peripatetic doctrines ! experienced a considerable revival ; and we Galen, f mcct wlth the names of Galen and Porphyry Porphyry. r J J \ as logicians : but it is not till the fifth century that Aristotle's logical works were translated Boethius. into Latin by the celebrated Boethius. Not one of these seems to have made any consi- derable advances in developing the theory of reasoning. Of Galen's labours little is known ; and Porphyry's principal work is merely on the predicahles. We have little of the science till the revival of learning among the Arabians, by whom Aristotle's treatises on this as well as on other subjects were eagerly studied. Passing by the names of some Byzantine writers of no great importance, we come to Schoolmen, thc tlmcs of thc Schoolmcu, whose waste of ingenuity and frivolous subtilty of disputation need not be enlarged upon. It may be suf- ficient to observe, that their fault did not lie in their diligent study of Logic, and the high value they set upon it, but in their utterly mistaking the true nature and object of the INTRODUCTION. 9 , science ; and by the attempt to employ it for ( the purpose of physical discoveries, involving ( every subject in a mist of words, to the ex- clusion of sound philosophical investigation. Their errors may serve to account for the strong terms in which Bacon sometimes ap- Bacon, pears to censure logical pursuits ; but that ) this censure was intended to bear against the \ extravagant perversions, not the legitimate ( cultivation of the science, may be proved from ( his own observations on the subject, in his Advancement of Learning, His moderation, however, was not imitated in other quarters. Even Locke confounds in Locke. one sweeping censure the Aristotelic theory, with the absurd misapplications and perver- sions of it in later years. His objection to the science, as unserviceable in the discovery of truth (which has of late been often repeated), while it holds good in reference to many (mis- named) logicians, indicates that, with regard to the true nature of the science itself, he had no clearer notions than they have, of the pro- per province of Logic, viz. Reasoning ; and of s the distinct character of that operation from 'the observations and experiments which are i essential to the study of nature. An error apparently different, but substan- tially the same, pervades the treatises of Watts watts. • and other modern writers on the subject. 10 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. Perceiving the inadequacy of the syllogistic theory to the vast purposes to which others had attempted to apply it, he still craved after the attainment of some equally comprehensive and all-powerful system ; which he accordingly attempted to construct, under the title of The Right Use of Reason, — which was to be a *• method of invigorating and properly directing all the powers of the mind : — a most magni- ficent object indeed, but one which not only does not fall under the province of Logic, but cannot be accomphshed by any one science or system that can even be conceived to exist. The attempt to comprehend so wide a field, is no extension of science, but a mere verbal -: generalization, which leads only to vague and barren declamation. In every pursuit, the more precise and definite our object, the more likely we are to attain some valuable result ; if, like the Platonists, who sought after the \ avrdyaOoVy — the abstract idea of good, — we \ pursue some specious but ill- defined scheme \ of universal knowledge, we shall lose the sub- j stance while grasping at a shadow, and be- \^^wilder ourselves in empty generalities. It is not perhaps much to be wondered at, that in still later times several ingenious writers, forming their notions of the science itself from professed masters in it, such as have just been alluded to, and judging of its value INTRODUCTION. 11 from their failures, should have treated the Aristotelic system with so much reprobation and scorn. Too much prejudiced to bestow on it the requisite attention for enabling them / clearly to understand its real character and /object, or even to judge correctly from the little they did understand, they have assailed the study with a host of objections, so totally irrelevant, and consequently impotent, that, considering the talents and general information > of those from whom they proceed, they might } excite astonishment in any one who did not fully estimate the force of very early prejudice. Logic has usually been considered by these incorrect views of the obiectors as professing to furnish a peculiar "«;"'^« "^ '*'« o r (when we are employing Logic as an art) of a test to try the validity of any argument ; in the same manner as by chemical analysis we develop and submit to a distinct examination the elements of which any compound body is composed, and are thus enabled to detect any latent sophistication and impurity. . Complaints have also been made that Logic leaves untouched the greatest difficulties, and those which are the sources of the chief errors in reasoning ; viz, the ambiguity or indistinct- ness of Terms, and the doubts respecting the degrees of evidence in various Propositions : an objection which is not to be removed by any such attempt as that of Watts to lay down " rules for forming clear ideas, and for guiding the judgment ;" but by replying that no art is to be censured for not teaching more than falls within its province, and indeed more than can be taught by any conceivable art. Such a system of universal knowledge as should in- struct us in the full meaning or meanings of y every term, and the truth or falsity, — certainty ( or uncertainty, — of every proposition, thus ( superseding all other studies, it is most unphi- ( losophical to expect, or even to imagine. And INTRODUCTION. 13 to find fault with Logic for not performing this, is as if one should object to the science of Optics for not giving sight to the blind ; or as if (like the man of whom Warburton tells a story in his Div, Leg,) one should complain of a reading-glass for being of no service to a person who had never learned to read. In fact, the difficulties and errors above alluded to are not in the process of Reasoning itself (which alone is the appropriate province of Logic) but in the subject-matter about which it is employed. This process will have been correctly conducted if it have conformed to the logical rules, which preclude the possibihty of any error creeping in between the principles from which we are arguing, and the conclusions we deduce from them. But still that conclu- sion may be false, if the principles we start from are so. In hke manner, no arithmetical skill vnll secure a correct result to a calcula- tion, unless the data are correct from which we calculate : nor does any one on that account undervalue Arithmetic ; and yet the objection against Logic rests on no better foundation. There is in fact a striking analogy in this respect between the two sciences. All Num- bers (which are the subject of Arithmetic) must be numbers of some things, whether coins, per- sons, measures, or any thing else ; but to intro- duce into the science any notice of the things 14 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. respecting which calculations are made, would be evidently irrelevant, and would destroy its scientific character : we proceed therefore with arbitrary signs representing numbers in the abstract. So also does Logic pronounce on the validity of a regularly-constructed argu- ment, equally well, though arbitrary symbols may have been substituted for the terms ; and, consequently, without any regard to the things signified by those terms. And the possibility of doing this (though the employment of such arbitrary symbols has been absurdly objected to, even by writers who understood not only Arithmetic but Algebra) is a proof of the strictly scientific character of the system. But many professed logical writers, not attending to the circumstances which have been just mentioned, have wandered into disquisitions on various branches of knowledge ; disquisitions which must evidently be as boundless as human knowledge itself, since there is no subject on which Reasoning is not employed, and to I which, consequently. Logic may not be applied, ( The error lies in regarding every thing as the 'V>^ P^^P^^ province of Logic to which it is appli- 1 cable. A similar error is complained of by / Aristotle, as having taken place with respect to Rhetoric ; of which, indeed, we find speci- ,. , mens in the arguments of several of the inter- ,.' Uocutors in Cic, de Oratore, // / INTRODUCTION. 15 From what has been said, it will be evident that there is hardly any subject to which it is so difficult to introduce the student in a clear and satisfactory manner, as the one we are now engaged in. In any other branch of know- ledge, the reader, if he have any previous acquaintance with the subject, will usually be so far the better prepared for comprehending the exposition of the principles; or if he be entirely a stranger to it, will at least come to the study with a mind unbiassed, and free from prejudices and misconceptions: whereas, in the present case, it cannot but happen, that many who have given some attention to logical pur- suits (or what are usually considered as such) will have rather been bewildered by funda- mentally erroneous views, than prepared, by the acquisition of just principles, for ulterior progress ; and that not a few who pretend not to any acquaintance whatever with the science, will yet have imbibed either such prejudices against it, or such false notions respecting its nature, as cannot but prove obstacles in their study of it. There is, however, a difficulty which exists more or less in all abstract pursuits; though it is perhaps more felt in this, and often oc- casions it to be rejected by beginners as dry and tedious ; viz, the difficulty of perceiving to what ultimate end, — to what practical or 16 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. interesting application — the abstract principles lead, which are first laid before the student; so that he will often have to work his way patiently through the most laborious part of the system before he can gain any clear idea of the drift and intention of it. This complaint has often been made by che- mical students, who are wearied with descrip- tions of oxygen, hydrogen, and other invisible elements, before they have any knowledge respecting such bodies as commonly present themselves to the senses. And accordingly some teachers of chemistry obviate in a great degree this objection, by adopting the ana- lytical instead of the synthetical mode of pro- cedure, when they are first introducing the subject to beginners ; i, e. instead of syntheti- cally enumerating the elementary substances, — proceeding next to the simplest combinations of these, — and concluding with those more complex substances which are of the most common occurrence, they begin by analyzing these last, and resolving them step by step into their simple elements ; thus at once pre- senting the subject in an interesting point of view, and clearly setting forth the object of it. The synthetical form of teaching is in- deed sufficiently interesting to one who has made considerable progress in any study; and being more concise, regular, and systematic. INTRODUCTION. 1 ^ is the form in which our knowledge naturally arranges itself in the mind, and is retained by the memory : but the analytical is the more interesting, easy, and natural kind of intro- duction ; as being the form in which the first invention or discovery of any kind of system must originally have taken place. It may be advisable, therefore, to begin by giving a slight sketch, in this form, of the logical system, before we enter regularly upon the details of it. The reader will thus be pre- sented with a kind of imaginary history of the course of inquiry by which that system may be conceived to have occurred to a philosophical mind. %• 18 [Book I. BOOK I. ANALYTICAL OUTLINE OF THE SCIENCE. § 1- In every instance in which we reason, in the strict sense of the word, L e, make use of arguments, whether for the sake of refuting an adversary, or of conveying instruction, or of satisfying our own minds on any point, what- ever may be the subject we are engaged on, a certain process takes place in the mind, which is one and the same in all cases, provided it be correctly conducted. Of course it cannot be supposed that every one is even conscious of this process in his own mind ; much less, is competent to explain the principles on which it proceeds. This indeed is, and cannot but be, the case with every other process respecting which any system has been formed ; the practice not only may exist ( independently of the theory, but must have ^ preceded the theory. There must have been Language before a system of Grammar could be devised ; and musical compositions, previous to the science of Music. This, by the way. § 1.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 19 will serve to expose the futility of the popular objection against Logic, that men may reason very well who know nothing of it.* The * Locke has a great deal to this purpose; e. g. in chap, xvii. " on Reason," (which, by the way, he perpetually confounds with Reasoning.') He says, in § 4, **If syllo- gisms must be taken for the only proper instrument of reason and means of knowledge, it will follow, that before Aristotle there was not one man that did or could know any thing by reason ; and that since the invention of syl- logisms there is not one in ten thousand that doth. But God has not been so sparing to men to make them barely two-legged creatures, and left it to Aristotle to make them rational, i. e. those few of them that he could get so to examine the grounds of syllogisms, as to see that in above threescore ways that three propositions may be laid toge- ther, there are but fourteen wherein one may be sure that the conclusion is right," 8^c. 8^c. *'God has been more bountiful to mankind than so : He has given them a mind that can reason without being instructed in methods of syllogizing," ^-c. ^c. All this is not at all less absurd than if any one, on being told of the discoveries of modern chemists respecting caloric, and on hearing described the process by which it is conducted through a boiler into the water, which it converts into a gas of sufficient elasticity to overcome the pressure of the atmosphere, %c., should reply, " If all this were so, it would follow that before the time of these chemists no one ever did or could make any liquor boil." In an ordinary, obscure, and trifling writer, all this con- fusion of thought and common-place declamation might as well have been left unnoticed ; but it is due to the general ability and to the celebrity of such an author as Locke, that errors of this kind should be exposed. He presently after inserts an encomium upon Aristotle, in which he is equally unfortunate ; he praises him for the ** invention of syllogisms ;" to which he certainly had no #"' c 2 20 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book I. parallel instances adduced, show that such an objection might be applied in many other cases, where its absurdity would be obvious ; and that there is no ground for deciding thence, either that the system has no tendency to improve practice, or that even if it had not, it might not still be a dignified and interesting pursuit. One of the chief impediments to the attain- ment of a just view of the nature and object of / ( Logic, is the not fully understanding, or not ( sufficiently keeping in mind^ the sameness of V ) the reasoning process in all cases. If, as the ordinary mode of speaking would seem to in- dicate, mathematical reasoning, and theologi- cal, and metaphysical, and political, 8fc, were essentially different from each other, L e, dif- ferent kmds of reasoning, it would follow, that supposing there could be at all any such science as we have described Logic, there must be so ) many different species, or at least different branches of Logic. And such is perhaps the more claim than Linnseus ta the creation of plants and animals; or Hervey, to the praise of having made the lAood circulate; or Lavoisier, to that of having formed the atmo- sphere we breathe. And the utility of this invention con- s.ists, according to him, in the great service. done against " those who were not ashamed to deny anything;" a service which never could have been performed, had syllogisms been an invention of Aristotle's ; for what sophist could ever have consented to restrict himself to one particular kind of arguments, dictated by his opponent ? § 1.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 21 most prevailing notion. Nor is this much to be wondered at ; since it is evident to all, that / some men converse and write, in an argumen- tative way, very justly on one subject, and very erroneously on another, in which again others excel, who fail in the former. This error may Reasoning process sinii- ^ ' be at once illustrated and removed, by consi- ^i;^ *" ""''■ dering the parallel instance of Arithmetic ; in which every one is aware that the process of a calculation is not affected by the nature of the objects whose numbers are before us : but that (e.g,J the multiplication of a number is the N/ very same operation, whether it be a number of men, of miles, or of pounds ; though neverthe- less persons may perhaps be found who are ^ accurate in calculations relative to natural | \^^ J* philosophy, and incorrect in those of political- -^ . j. ^\j/J^ economy, from their different degrees of skill in t'^ ^ the subjects of these two sciences ; not surely ^^ because there are different arts of Arithmetic applicable to each of these respectively. Others again, who are aware that the simple system of Logic may be applied to all subjects whatever, are yet disposed to view it as a peculiar method of reasoning, and not, as it is, a method of unfolding and analyzing our rea- soning : whence many have been led (e, g, the author of the Philosophy of Rhetoric) to talk { of comparing Syllogistic reasoning with Moral reasoning; taking it for granted that it is 'i {' J H' 22 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book L '-^^ Vr possible to reason correctly without reasoning logically ; which is, in fact, as great a blunder as if any one were to mistake grammar for a peculiar language, and to suppose it possible to speak correctly without speaking grammatically. They have in short considered Logic as an art of reasoning ; whereas (so far as it is an art) it is the art of reasoning ; the logician's object being, not to lay down principles by which one may reason, but, by which all must reason, even though they are not distinctly aware of them: — to lay down rules, not which may be followed with advantage, but which cannot possibly be departed from in sound reasoning. These mis- apprehensions and objections being such as lie on the very threshold of the subject, it would have been hardly possible, without noticing them, to convey any just notion of the nature and design of the logical system. ^"jr § 2. >/>^>^ Supposing it then to have been perceived that the operation of reasoning is in all cases the same, the analysis of that operation could not fail to strike the mind as an interesting matter of inquiry. And moreover, since (appa- rent) arguments which are unsound and incon- clusive, are so often employed, either from error or design ; and since even those who are not misled by these fallacies, are so often at a loss § 2.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 23 to detect and expose them in a manner satisfac- tory to others, or even to themselves; it could not but appear desirable to lay down some general rules of reasoning, applicable to all cases ; by which a person might be enabled the ( more readily and clearly to state the grounds / , v^ f of his own conviction, or of his objection to the arguments of an opponent ; instead of arguing at random, without any fixed and acknowledged ., , principles to guide his procedure. Such rules ,v would be analogous to those of Arithmetic, H which obviate the tediousness and uncertainty of calculations in the head; wherein, after '^ ^ much labour, different persons might arrive at different results, without any of them being able distinctly to point out the error of the rest. A system of such rules, it is obvious, must, in- < stead of deserving to be called the art of wrang- ling, be more justly characterised as the '' art ^ of cutting short wrangling," by bringing the V ( parties to issue at once, if not to agreement ; ( and thus saving a waste of ingenuity. In pursuing the supposed investigation, it Analysis of will be found that every conclusion is deduced, in reality, from two other propositions; (thence called Premises;) for though one of these may ^> be, and commonly is, suppressed, it must never- i^ . ^ < theless be understood as admitted ; as may c easily be made evident by supposing the denial ) of the suppressed premiss, which will at once 24 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book L f invalidate the argument: e.g, if any one, from perceiving that '' the world exhibits marks of design," infers that '' it must have had an in- telligent author," though he may not be aware in his own mind of the existence of any other premiss, he will readily understand, if it be denied that ^' whatever exhibits marks of design must have had an intelligent author," that the affirmative of that proposition is necessary to the validity of the argument. An argument thus stated regularly and at full length, is , called a Syllogism ; which therefore is evidently < not a peculiar kind of argument, but only a peculiar form of expression, in which every argument may be stated. When one of the premises is suppressed (which for brevity's sake it usually is) the argument is called an Enthymeme. And it may be worth while to remark, that when the argument is in this state, the objections of an opponent are (or rather appear to be) of two kinds ; viz, either objections to the assertion itself, or objections to \i^ force as an argument. E,G. In the above instance, an atheist may be conceived either denying that the world does exhibit marks of design, or denying that it follows from thence that it had an intelligent author. Now it is important to keep in mind that the only difference in the two cases is, that in the one the expressed premiss is denied, in the § 2.J ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 25 other the suppressed; iorihe force as an argument of either premiss depends on the other premiss: if both be admitted, the conclusion legitimately connected with them cannot be denied. It is evidently immaterial to the argument whether the conclusion be placed first or last ; but it may be proper to remark, that a premiss placed after its conclusion is called the Reason* of it, and is introduced by one of those con- junctions which are called causal ; viz, '' since," '' because," S^c. which may indeed be employed to designate a premiss, whether it came first or last. The illative conjunctions, " therefore," S^c, designate the conclusion. It is a circumstance which often occasions error and perplexity, that both these classes of conjunctions have also another signification, being employed to denote, respectively. Cause and Effect, as well as Premiss and Conclusion : e, g. If I say, '' this ground is rich, because the trees on it are flourishing," or " the trees are flourishing, and therefore the soil must be rich," I employ these conjunctions to denote the con- nexion of Premiss and Conclusion ; for it is plain that the luxuriance of the trees is not the cause of the soil's fertility, but only the cause of my knowing it. If again I say, *' the trees flourish, because the ground is rich,'* * The Major-premiss is often called the Principle; and the word Reason is then confined to the Minor. 26 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book I. or " the ground is rich, and therefore the trees flourish/' I am using the very same conjunctions Proof and ^o dcuote the connexion of cause and effect; for cause. «^ in this case, the luxuriance of the trees, being evident to the eye, would hardly need to be proved, but might need to be accounted for. There are, however, many cases, in which the cause is employed to prove the existence of its effect; especially in arguments relating to {future events ; as e, g. when from favourable weather any one argues that the crops are likely to be abundant : * the cause and the O ^ reason, in that case, coincide. And this con- tributes to their being so often confounded together in other cases. §3. In an argument, such as the example above given, it is, as has been said, impossible for any one, who admits both premises, to avoid ad- mitting the conclusion. But there will be fre- ^ifmelTts*'"' quently an apparent connection of premises with a conclusion which does not in reality follow from them, though to the inattentive or un- skilful the argument may appear to be valid : and there are many other cases in which a doubt may exist whether the argument be valid or not; L e, whether it be possible or not to admit the * See Appendix, No. I. art. Reason. See also Rhetoric^ Part I. ch. 2. § ii. § 3.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 2? premises, and yet deny the conclusion. It is of the highest importance, therefore, to lay down some regular form to which every valid argu- ment may be reduced, and to devise a rule which shall show the validity of every argument in that form, and consequently the unsoundness of any apparent argument which cannot be reduced to it : — e, g. if such an argument as this be proposed, " every rational agent is account- able; brutes are not rational agents; therefore they are not accountable :" or again, " all wise legislators suit their laws to the genius of their nation ; Solon did this ; therefore he was a wise legislator :" there are some, perhaps, who would not perceive any fallacy in such arguments, especially if enveloped in a cloud of words ; and still more, when the conclusion is true, or (which comes to the same point) if they are dis- posed to believe it : and others might perceive indeed, but might be at a loss to explain, the fallacy. Now these (apparent) arguments ex- actly correspond, respectively, with the follow- ing, the absurdity of the conclusions from which is manifest : '' every horse is an animal ; sheep are not horses ; therefore they are not animals :" and, ^^ all vegetables grow; an animal grows; therefore it is a vegetable." These last exam- ples,! have said, correspond exactly (considered as arguments) with the former ; the question respecting the validity of an argument being. Pi // /; 28 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book L not whether the conclusion be true, but whether it folloxvs from the premises adduced. This mode of exposing a fallacy, by bringing forward a similar one whose conclusion is obviously absurd, is often, and very advantageously, re- sorted to in addressing those who are ignorant of Logical rules;* but to lay down such rules, > and employ them as a test, is evidently a safer N and more compendious, as well as a more ) philosophical mode of proceeding. To attain } these, it would plainly be necessary to analyze ' some clear and valid arguments, and to observe in what their conclusiveness consists. / Let us suppose, then, such an examination ^ to be made of the syllogism above mentioned : / *^ whatever exhibits marks of design had an intelHgent author ; the world exhibits marks of design ; therefore the world had an inteUigent author." In the first of these premises we find * An exposure of some of Hume's fallacies in his " Essay on Miracles" and elsewhere, was attempted, on this plan, a few years ago, in a pamphlet (published ano- nymously, as the nature of the argument required, but which I see no reason against acknowledging) entitled " Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Buonaparte;" in which it was shown that the existence of that extraordi- nary person could not, on Hume's principles, be received as a well-authenticated fact ; since it rests on evidence less strong than that which supports the Scripture-histories. ; For a clear development of the mode in which this last evidence operates on most minds, see " Hints on Inspira- tion/' p. 30—46. § 3.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 29 it assumed universally of the class of " things which exhibit marks of design/' that they had an intelligent author ; and in the other premiss, " the world " is referred to that class as com- prehended in it : now it is evident, that what- ever is said of the whole of a class, may be said of any thing comprehended in that class ; so that we are thus authorized to say of the world, that "it had an intelhgent author." Again, if we examine a syllogism with a nega- tive conclusion, as, e, g. " nothing which exhi- bits marks of design could have been produced by chance : the world exhibits, S(*c, ; therefore the world could not have been produced by chance :" the process of Reasoning will be found to be the same ; since it is evident, that / whatever is denied universally of any class may She denied of any thing that is comprehended in that class. ■'^ On further examination it will be found, that \ all valid arguments whatever may be easily (' reduced to such a form as that of the fore- / going syllogisms ; and that consequently the N principle on which they are constructed is the UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE of Reasoning. So elliptical, indeed, is the ordinary mode of ; expression, even of those who are considered \ as prolix writers, — i. e, so much is implied and I left to be understood in the course of argu- 1 ment, in comparison of what is actually stated. 30 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book I. (most men being impatient, even to excess, of 2, (^ any appearance of unnecessary and tedious formality of statement) that a single sentence will often be found, though perhaps considered as a single argument, to contain, compressed into a short compass, a chain of several distinct arguments. But if each of these be fully deve- loped, and the v^^hole of what the author in- tended to imply be stated expressly, it will be found that all the steps even of the longest and most complex train of reasoning, may be re- duced into the above form. It is a mistake (which might appear scarcely worthy of notice, had not so many, even esteemed writers, fallen into it) to imagine that Aristotle and other logicians meant to propose C that this prolix form of unfolding arguments should universally supersede, in argumentative discourses, the common forms of expression ; and that, ^^to reason logically," means, to state all arguments at full length in the syllogistic form : and Aristotle has even been charged with inconsistency for not doing so. It has been said, / that '' in his Treatises of Ethics, Politics, 8^c, he argues hke a rational creature, and never . attempts to bring his own system into prac- tice." * As well might a chemist be charged with inconsistency for making use of any of the compound substances that are commonly * Lord Karnes. §4.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 31 employed, without previously analyzing and resolving them into their simple elements ; as well might it be imagined that, to speak gram- matically, means, to parse every sentence we utter. The chemist (to pursue the illustration) keeps by him his tests and his method of analysis, to be employed when any substance is offered to his notice, the composition of which has not been ascertained, or in which adultera- tion is suspected. Now a fallacy may aptly be compared to some adulterated compound ; " it " consists of an ingenious mixture of truth and " falsehood, so entangled, — so intimately blend- ^^ed, — that the falsehood is (in the chemical " phrase) held in solution : one drop of sound '' logic is that test which immediately disunites "them, makes the foreign substance visible, " and precipitates it to the bottom." * §4. But to resume the investigation of the prin- A.utotie's • t n • 1 • 1 • ^ dictum. ciples of reasonmg : the maxim resultmg from the examination of a syllogism in the foregoing form, and of the application of which, every \ valid argument is in reality an instance, is, " that whatever is predicated (i. e. affirmed or * This excellent illustration is cited from a passage in an anonymous pamphlet, "An Examination of Rett's Logic." The author displays, though in a hasty production, great '- reach of thought, as well as knowledge of his subject. 32 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book L denied) universally, of any class of things, may be predicated, in like manner, {viz. affirmed or denied) of any thing comprehended in that class." This is the principle, commonly called the dictum de omni et nullo, for the establish- ment of which we are indebted to Aristotle, and which is the keystone of his whole logical system. It is not a little remarkable that some, otherwise judicious writers, should have been so carried away by their zeal against that philosopher, as to speak with scorn and ridicule of this principle, on account of its obviousness and simphcity ; though they would probably perceive at once, in any other case, that it is the greatest triumph of philosophy to refer many, and seemingly very various, phenomena to one, or a very few, simple principles ; and that the more simple and evident such a prin- ciple is, provided it be truly applicable to all the cases in question, the greater is its value and scientific beauty. If, indeed, any prin- ciple be regarded as not thvis applicable, that is an objection to it of a different kind. Such an objection against Aristotle's dictum, no one has ever attempted to establish by any kind of proof; but it has often been take?i for granted; it being (as has been stated) very commonly supposed, without examination, that the syllogism is a distinct kind of argument, and that the rules of it accordingly do not § 4.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 83 C apply, nor were intended to apply, to all I reasoning whatever. Under this misappre- hension. Dr. Campbell* labours with some in- genuity, and not without an air of plausibihty, to show that every syllogism must be futile and worthless, because the premises virtually assert the conclusion : little dreaming, of course, that his objections, however specious, / lie against the process of reasoning itself, ) universally ; and will therefore, of course, \ apply to those very arguments which he is ' himself adducing. It is much more extraordinary to find ano- ther eminent authorf adopting, expressly, the very same objections, and yet distinctly admit- ting (within a few pages) the possibility of reducing every course of argument to a series of syllogisms. The same writer brings an objection against the Dictum of Aristotle, which it may be worth while to notice briefly, for the sake of setting in a clearer light the real character and object of that principle. Its application being, as has been seen, to a regular and conclusive syllogism, he supposes it intended to prove and make evident the conclusiveness of such a syllogism ; and remarks how unphilosophical it is to attempt giving a demonstration of a * " Philosophy of Rhetoric." f Dugald Stewart : Philosophy, vol. ii. D 34 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book L demonstration. And certainly the charge would be just, if we could imagine the logi- cian's object to be, to increase the certaiyity of a conclusion which we are supposed to have already arrived at by the clearest possible mode of proof. But it is very strange that such an idea should ever have occurred to one who had even the slightest tincture of natural philoso- phy : for it might as well be imagined that a natural philosopher's or a chemist's design is to strengthen the testimony of our senses by a -priori reasoning, and to convince us that a stone when thrown will fall to the ground, and that gunpowder will explode when fired ; be- cause they show that according to their prin- ciples those phenomena must take place as they do. But it would be reckoned a mark of the grossest ignorance and stupidity not to be aware that their object is not to prove the existence of an individual phenomenon, which our eyes have witnessed, but (as the phrase is) J to account for it : i, e, to show according to f what principle it takes place ; — to refer, in ^J short, the individual case to a general laxv of ) nature. The object of Aristotle's dictum is /precisely analogous: he had, doubtless, no \ thought of adding to the force of any indi- ( vidual syllogism ; his design was to point out *■' / the general principle on which that process is < conducted which takes place in each syllogism. §4.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 35 And as the Laws * of nature (as they are called) are in reality merely generalized facts, of which all the phenomena coming under them are particular instances ; so, the proof drawn from Aristotle's dictum is not a distinct demonstration brought to confirm another demonstration, but is merely a generalized and abstract statement of all demonstration whatever ; and is, therefore, in fact, the very demonstration which, (mutatis mutandis) ac- commodated to the various subject-matters, is actually employed in each particular case. In order to trace more distinctly the different The dictum, statement of steps of the abstracting process, by which any fhf"aUrUtI particular argument may be brought into the most general form, we may first take a syllogism stated accurately and at full length, such as the example formerly given, " whatever exhibits marks of design, ^c," and then somewhat -^ generalize the expression, by substituting (as in Algebra) arbitrary unmeaning symbols for the significant terms that were originally used; the syllogism will then stand thus ; " every B is A ; C is B ; therefore C is A." The rea- soning is no less evidently valid when thus stated, whatever terms A, B, and C, respectively may be supposed to stand for ; such terms may indeed be inserted as to make all or some of Appendix, No. I. art. Law. D 2 36 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book L the assertions /aZ5^; but it will still be no less impossible for any one who admits the truth of the premises, in an argument thus constructed, to deny the conclusion ; and this it is that constitutes the conclusiveness of an argument. Viewing then the syllogism thus expressed, it appears clearly, that ^'A stands for any thing whatever that is affirmed of a whole class," (viz. of every B) '' which class comprehends or contains in it something else" viz, C (of which B is, in the second premiss, affirmed) ; and that, consequently, the first term (A) is, in the conclusion, predicated of the third C. Now to assert the validity of this process, now before us, is to state the very dictum we are treating of, with hardly even a verbal alteration ; viz. : 1. Anything whatever, predicated of a whole class, 2. Under which class something else is con- tained, 3. May be predicated of that which is so contained. The three members into which the maxim is here distributed, correspond to the three propositions of the syllogism to which they are intended respectively to apply. The advantage of substituting for the terms, in a regular syllogism, arbitrary unmeaning symbols, such as letters of the alphabet, is §4.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 37 much the same as in geometry : the reasoning itself is then considered, by itself, clearly, and without any risk of our being misled by the truth or falsity of the conclusion ; which is, in fact, accidental and variable ; the essential point being, as far as the argument is concerned, the //■ connexion between the premises and the con- clusion. We are thus enabled to embrace the general principle of all reasoning, and to per- ceive its applicability to an indefinite number of individual cases. That Aristotle, therefore, should have been accused of making use of these symbols for the purpose of darkening his demonstrations, and that too by persons not unacquainted with geometry and algebra, is truly astonishing. If a geometer, instead of designating the four angles of a square by four letters, were to call them north, south, east, and zvest, he would not render the demonstration of a theorem the easier ; and the learner would be much more likely to be perplexed in the application of it. It belongs then exclusively to a syllogism, properly so called (i. e, a valid argument, so stated that its conclusiveness is evident from the mere form of the expression), that if letters, or any other unmeaning symbols, be substi- tuted for the several terms, the vahdity of the argument shall still be evident. Whenever this is not the case, the supposed argument is 38 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book I. either unsound and sophistical, or else may be reduced (without any alteration of its meaning) into the syllogistic form ; in which form, the test just mentioned may be applied to it. Detection of What Is Called an unsound or fallacious unsound ar- guments. argumcut, i, e, an apparent argument, which is, in reality, none, cannot, of course, be reduced into this form ; but when stated in the form most nearly approaching to this that is possible, its fallaciousness becomes more evident, from its nonconformity to the foregoing rule : e, g, '^ whoever is capable of deliberate crime is re- sponsible ; an infant is not capable of deliberate crime ; therefore, an infant is not responsible," (see § 3) : here the term '' responsible " is affirmed universally of " those capable of deli- berate crime ;" it might, therefore, according to Aristotle's dictum, have been affirmed of // anything contained under that class ; but, in ' the instance before us, nothing is mentioned as contained under that class ; only, the term '^ infant " is excluded from that class ; and though what is affirmed of a whole class may be affirmed of anything that is contained under it, there is no ground for supposing that it may be denied of whatever is not so contained ; for it is evidently possible that it may be applicable to a whole class and to something else besides : to say, e, g, that all trees are vegetables, does not imply that nothing else is a vegetable. § 5.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 39 Nor, when it is said, that all who are capable of deliberate crime are responsible, does this imply, that no others are responsible ; for though this may be very true, it has not been asserted in the premiss before us ; and in the analysis of an argument, we are to discard all consideration of what might be asserted ; con- templating only what actually is laid down in the premises. It is evident, therefore, that such an apparent argument as the above does not comply with the rule laid down, nor can be so stated as to comply with it, and is consequently invalid. Again, in this instance, " food is necessary to life ; corn is food ; therefore, corn is necessary to life :" the term *' necessary to life" is affirmed of food, but not universally ; for it is not said of every kind of food : the meaning of the assertion being manifestly that some food is necessary to life : here again, therefore, the rule has not been complied with, since that which has been predicated, {i, e. affirmed or denied) not of the whole, but of a part only of a certain class, cannot be, on that ground, predicated of any thing whatever which is coi^tained under that class. §5. The fallacy in this last case is, what is usually described in logical language as consisting in 40 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book L the '' non-distribution of the middle term :" i, e. its not being employed to denote all the objects to which it is applicable. In order to under- stand this phrase, it is necessary to observe, that a proposition being an expression in which one thing is affirmed or denied of another ; e.g. '^A is B," both that of which something is said, and that which is said of it (i. e. both A and B), are called '* terms," from their being (in their nature) the extremes or boundaries of the pro- position ; and there are, of course, two, and but two, terms in a proposition (though it may so happen that either of them may consist either of one word, or of several) ; and a term is said to Distribution bc " distributed," when it is taken universally, so as to stand for every thing it is capable of being applied to ; and consequently " undis- tributed," when it stands for a portion only of the things signified by it : thus, " all food," or every kind of food, are expressions which imply the distribution of the term '^ food ;" '' some food " would imply its non-distribution : and it is also to be observed, that the term of which, in one premiss, something is afiirmed or denied, and to which, in the other premiss, something else is referred as contained in it, is called the " middle " term in the syllogism, as standing between the other two {viz, the two terms of the conclusion), and being the medium of proof. Now it is plain, that if in each premiss a j^cti^t of terms. § 5.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 41 only of this middle term is employed, i.e, if it be not at all distributed, no conclusion can be drawn. Hence, if, in the example formerly adduced, it had been merely stated that ''something" (not '' whatever/' or " everything") " which exhibits marks of design, is the work of an intelligent author," it would not have followed, from the world's exhibiting marks of design, that that is the work of an intelligent author. It is to be observed, also, that the words '' all " and '' every," which mark the distri- bution of a term, and " some," which marks its non-distribution, are not always expressed : they are frequently understood, and left to be supplied by the context; e.g, "food is neces- sary ;" viz. " some food ;" " man is mortal ;" viz. " every man." Propositions thus expressed are called by logicians ''indefinite," because it is left undetermined by the form of the expres- sion whether the " subject" (the term of which something is affirmed or denied being called the "subject" of the proposition, and that which is said of it, the "predicate") be distributed or not. Nevertheless it is plain that in every proposition the subject either is, or is not, distributed, though it be not declared whether it is or not; consequently, every proposition, whether expressed indefinitely or not, must be either "universal" or "particular;" those 42 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book 1. being called universal, in which the predicate is said of the whole of the subject (or, in other words, where the subject is distributed); and those particular, in which it is said only of a part of the subject: e.g. "All men are sinful," is universal ; " some men are sinful," particular : and this division of propositions is, in logical language, said to be according to their " quantity." Quantity and But thc distributiou or non-distribution of the quality of propositions, p^^^i^ate Is cutirely independent of the quantity of the proposition ; nor are the signs " all " and "some" ever affixed to the predicate; because its distribution depends upon, and is indicated by, the " quality " of the proposition ; i. e. its being affirmative or negative; it being a uni- versal rule, that the predicate of a negative proposition is distributed, and of an affirmative, undistributed.* The reason of this may easily be understood, by considering that a term which stands for a whole class may be applied to {i. e. * The learner may perhaps be startled at being told that the predicate of an affirmative is never distributed ; 4^ especially as Aldrich has admitted that accidentally this may take place; as in such a proposition as "all equilateral triangles are equiangular ;" but this is not accurate : he might have said that in such a proposition as the above the predicate is distributable, but not that it is actually dis- tributed : i. e. it so happens that "all equiangular triangles are equilateral ;" but this is not implied in the previous assertion ; and the point to be considered is, not what might be said with truth, but what actually has been said. §5.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 43 affirmed of) anything that is comprehended under that class^ though the term of which it is thus affirmed may be of much narrower extent than that other, and may, therefore, be far from coinciding with the whole of it : thus it may be said with truth, that " the Negroes are uncivi- hzed," though the term uncivihzed be of much wider extent than '^ Negroes," comprehending, besides them, Hottentots, ^c; so that it would not be allowable to assert, that " all who are uncivilized are Negroes ;" it is evident, there- fore, that it is a part only of the term ^' uncivi- lized " that has been affirmed of " Negroes :" and the same reasoning applies to every af- firmative proposition; for though it may so happen that the subject and predicate coincide, i. e, are of equal extent, as, e. g, '^ all men are rational animals ; " ^' all equilateral triangles are equiangular ; " (it being equally true, that " all rational animals are men," and that '' all equiangular triangles are equilateral ;") yet this is not implied by the form of the expression ; since it would be no less true, that " all men are rational animals," even if there were other rational animals besides man. It is plain, therefore, that if any part of the predicate is applicable to the subject, it may be affirmed, and, of course, cannot be denied, of that subject ; and consequently, when the predicate is denied of the subject, it is implied terms. 44 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book L that no 'part of that predicate is applicable to that subject ; L e, that the whole of the predicate is denied of the subject: for to say, e,g. that " no beasts of prey ruminate/' implies that beasts of prey are excluded from the whole class of ruminant animals, and consequently that " no ruminant animals are beasts of prey." And hence results the above-mentioned rule, that the distribution of the predicate is implied in negative propositions, and its non-distribu- tion in affirmatives. Distribution It is to bc remembered, therefore, that it is of middle ^ ^ not sufficient for the middle term to occur in a universal proposition ; since if that proposition be an affirmative, and the middle term be the predicate of it, it v^ill not be distributed : e. g. if in the example formerly given, it had been merely asserted, that " all the w^orks of an intelligent author show marks of design," and that " the universe shows marks of design," nothing could have been proved ; since, though both these propositions are universal, the middle term is made the predicate in each, and both are affirmative ; and accordingly, the rule of Aristotle is not here complied with, since the term " work of an intelligent author," which is to be proved applicable to "the universe," would not have been affirmed of the middle term (" what shows marks of design ") under which " universe" is contained ; but the § 5.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 45 middle term, on the contrary, would have been affirmed of it. If, however, one of the premises be nega- tive, the middle term may then be made the predicate of that, and will thus, according to the above remark, be distributed : e. g. " no ruminant animals are predacious ; the lion is predacious ; therefore the lion is not rumi- nant:" this is a valid syllogism; and the middle term (predacious) is distributed by being made the predicate of a negative proposition. The form, indeed, of the syllogism is not that pre- scribed by the dictum of Aristotle, but it may easily be reduced to that form, by stating the first proposition thus : " no predacious animals are ruminant ;" which is manifestly implied (as was above remarked) in the assertion that "no ruminant animals are predacious." The syllo- gism will thus appear in the form to which the dictum applies. It is not every argument, indeed, that can be reduced to this form by so short and simple an alteration as in the case before us : a longer and more complex process will often be required ; and rules will hereafter be laid down to faci- litate this process in certain cases : but there is no sound argument but what can be reduced into this form, without at all departing from the real meaning and drift of it; and the form will be found (though more prolix than is 46 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book L needed for ordinary use) the most perspicuous in which an argument can be exhibited. All reasoning whatever, then, rests on the one simple principle laid down by Aristotle, that '' what is predicated, either affirmatively or negatively, of a term distributed, may be predicated in like manner (i, e. affirmatively or negatively) of any thing contained under that term." So that when our object is to prove any proposition, i. e. to show that one term may rightly be affirmed or denied of another, the process which really takes place in our minds is, that we refer that term (of which the other is to be thus predicated) to some class (^. e, middle term) of which that other may be affirmed, or denied, as the case may be. What- ever the subject matter of an argument may be, the reasoning itself, considered by itself, is I in every case the same process ; and if the writers against Logic had kept this in mind, I they would have been cautious of expressing .^ j their contempt of what they call '' syllogistic reasoning," which is in truth all reasoning; and instead of ridiculing Aristotle's principle for its obviousness and simplicity, would have ^perceived that these are, in fact, its highest ipraise : the easiest, shortest, and most evident theory, provided it answer the purpose of ex- iplanation, being ever the best. § G.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 47 § 6. If we conceive an inquirer to have reached, in his investigation of the theory of reasoning, the point to which we have now arrived, a question which would be Kkely next to engage his attention, is that of Predication ; i, e. since in reasoning we are to find a middle term, which may be predicated affirmatively of the subject in question, we are led to inquire what terms may be affirmed, and what denied, of what others. It is evident that proper names, or any other common and terms, which denote each but a single indivi- *'""*• dual, as '^Caesar," ^^ the Thames," "the Con- queror of Pompey," " this river " (hence called in Logic " singular terms ") cannot be affirmed of anything besides themselves, and are there- fore to be denied of any thing else ; we may say, " this river is the Thames," or " Caesar was the conqueror of Pompey ;" but we cannot say of anything else that it is the Thames, ^c. On the other hand, those terms which are called '' common," as denoting any one indivi- dual of a whole class, as " river," '' conqueror," may of course be affirmed of any, or all that belong to that class : as, " the Thames is a river ;" " the Rhine and the Danube are rivers." ^- Common terms, therefore, are called " pre- dicates" (viz. affirmatively/ predicable), from their capabihty of being affirmed of others : a singular term, on the contrary, may be the 48 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC, [Book L Subject of a proposition, but never the Predi- cate, unless it be of a negative proposition ; (as, e, g, the first-born of Isaac was not Jacob ;) or, unless the subject and predicate be only two expressions for the same individual object ; as in some of the above instances. Abstraction Thc proccss bv which the mind arrives at the and generaiN zation. notions expressed by these '' common " (or in popular language, "general") terms, is properly called Generalization ; though it is usually (and truly) said to be the business of abstraction ; for \ Generalization is one of the purposes to which L Abstraction is applied : when we draw off, and contemplate separately, any part of an object presented to the mind, disregarding the rest of it, we are said to abstract that part. Thus, a person might, when a rose was before his eyes or mind, make the scent a distinct object of attention, laying aside all thought of the colour, form, S^c, ; and thus, even though it were the only rose he had ever met with, he would be employing the faculty of Abstraction ; but if, in contemplating several objects, and finding that they agree in certain points, we abstract the circumstances of agreement, disregarding the differences, and give to all and each of these objects a name applicable to them in respect of this agreement, i, e. a common name, as " rose," we are then said to generalize. Ab- straction, therefore, does not necessarily imply § 6.J ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 49 Generalization, though GeneraKzation implies Abstraction. Much needless difficulty has been raised respecting the results of this process ; many having contended, and perhaps more having taken for granted, that there must be some really existing thing, '^ corresponding to each of those general or common terms, and of which such term is the name, standing for and repre- senting it ; e, g, that as there is a really exist- ing Being corresponding to the proper name, " ^tna," and signified by it, so the common term '^ mountain," must have some one really existing thing corresponding to it, and of course distinct from each individual mountain (since the term is not singular but common), yet existing in each, since the term is applicable to each of them. '^ When many different men,'* it is said, " are at the same time thinking or speaking about a mountain, i. e. not any par- ticular one, but a mountain generally, their minds must be all employed on something; which must also be one thing, and not several, and yet cannot be any one individual : " and hence a vast train of mystical disquisitions about Ideas, S^c. has arisen, which are at best nugatory, and tend to obscure our view of the process which actually takes place in the mind. * See the subjoined Dissertation, Book IV. Chap. v. E common terms. 50 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book I. Notions ex. The fact is, the notion expressed by a com- pressed by ' 1 ./ mon term is merely an inadequate (or incom- plete) notion of an individual ; and from the very circumstance of its inadequacy, it will apply equally v^ell to any one of several in- dividuals : e, g, if I omit the mention and the consideration of every circumstance which dis- tinguishes ^tna from any other mountain, I then form a notion (expressed by the common term mountain) which inadequately designates iEtna {i, e, which does not imply any of its peculiarities), and is equally applicable to any one of several other individuals. Generalization, it is plain, may be indefinite- ly extended by a further abstraction applied to common terms : e. g. as by abstraction from the term Socrates we obtain the common term " Philosopher ;" so, from ^' philosopher," by a similar process, we arrive at the more general term " man ;" from *' man " we advance to '' animal," Sfc. The employment of this faculty at pleasure has been regarded, and perhaps with good reason, as the characteristic distinction of the human mind from that of the Brutes. We are ^ thus enabled not only to separate, and consider / singly one part of an object presented to the / mind, but also to fix arbitrarily upon whatever part we please, according as may suit the pur- pose we happen to have in view ; e, g, any § G.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 51 individual person to whom we may direct our attention, may be considered either in a pohti- cal point of view, and accordingly referred to the class of Merchant, Farmer, Lawyer, 8^c, as the case may be ; or physiologically, as Negro, or White-man ; or theologically, as Pagan or Christian, Papist or Protestant; or geographi- cally, as European, American, 8^c, S^c, And so, in respect of anything else that may be the subject of our reasoning: we arbitrarily fix upon and abstract that point which is essential to the purpose in hand; so that the same object Different ab- stractions may be referred to various different classes, J;^™ ^j'^^^^j according to the occasion. Not, of course, that we are allowed to refer anything to a class to which it does not really belong; which would be pretending to abstract from it some- thing that was no part of it ; but that we arbi- trarily fix on any part of it which we choose to abstract from the rest. It is important to notice this, because men are often disposed to consider each object as really and properly belonging to some one class alone,* from their having been accustomed, in the course of their own pursuits, to consider, in one point of view only, things which may with equal propriety be considered in other points of view also: Le, referred to various * See the subjoined Dissertation, Book IV. Chap. v. E 2 52 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book I. Classes, (or predicates.) And this is that which chiefly constitutes what is called narrowness-of- mind : e.g. di mere botanist might be astonished at hearing such plants as Clover and Lucerne included, in the language of a farmer, under the term '^ grasses," which he has been accus- tomed to limit to a tribe of plants widely different in all botanical characteristics ; and the mere farmer might be no less surprised to Different find thc troublcsome " weed," (as he has been modes of clas- ^ siocation. accustomed to call it,) known by the name of Couch-grass, and which he has been used to class with nettles and thistles, to which it has no botanical affinity, ranked by the botanist as a species of Wheat, {Triticum Repens.) And yet neither of these classifications is in itself erroneous or irrational ; though it would be ( absurd, in a botanical treatise, to class plants according to their agricultural use ; or, in an agricultural treatise, according to the structure of their flowers. The utility of these considerations, with a view to the present subject, will be readily estimated, by recurring to the account which / has been already given of the process of rea- \ soning ; the analysis of which shows, that it ■ consists in referring the term we are speaking of to some class, viz, a middle term; which term again is referred to or excluded from (as the case may be) another class, viz. the term which § 6.] ANALYTICAL OUTLINE. 53 we wish to affinn or deny of the subject of the conclusion. So that the quahty of our reason- ing in any case must depend on our being able correctly, clearly and promptly, to ab- stract from the subject in question that which may furnish a Middle-term suitable to the occasion. The imperfect and irregular sketch which has here been attempted, of the logical system, may suffice (even though some parts of it should not be at once fully understood by those who are entirely strangers to the study) to point out the general drift and purpose of the science, and to render the details of it both more inte- resting and more intelligible. The analytical form, which has here been adopted, is, gene- ,/ rally speaking, better suited for introducing ) any science in the plainest and most interesting form ; though the synthetical, which will hence- ) forth be employed, is the more regular, and ( the more compendious form for storing it up ; in the memory. 54 [Book II. BOOK 11. SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. Chap. I. — Of the Operations of the Mind and of Terms. Operations of There are three operations of the mind the mind. *• which are immediately concerned in argument; 1st. Simple Apprehension; 2d. Judgment; 3d. Discourse or Reasoning.* simpie-ap. Ist. Simplc-apprehcnsion is the notion (or prehension, • s p i • * t • i conception) of any object m the mmd^ analo- gous to the perception of the senses. It is either Incomplex or Complex : Incomplex Apprehension is of one object, or of several without any relation being perceived between * Logical writers have in general begun by laying down that there are, in all, three operations of the mind : (in universum tres) an assertion by no means incontrovertible, and which, if admitted, is nothing to the present purpose ; our business is with argumentation, and the operations of '^^ I the mind implied in that ; what others there may be, or whether any, are irrelevant questions. The opening of a treatise with a statement respecting the operations of the mind universally, tends to foster the prevailing error (from which probably the minds of the writers were not exempt) of supposing that Logic pro- - 1 fesses to teach " the use of the mental faculties in general ;" - — the "right use of reason," according to Watts. Chap. I. § 2.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 55 them, as of '' a man," '' sl horse/' '^ cards :" com- plex is of several with such a relation, as of '' a man on horseback," '' a pack of cards." 2d. Judgment is the comparing together in jadgment. the mind two of the notions (or ideas) which are the objects of Apprehension, whether com- plex or incomplex, and pronouncing that they agree or disagree with each other : (or that one of them belongs or does not belong to the other.) Judgment, therefore, is either affirma- tive or negative. 3d. Reasoning (or discourse) is the act of Discourse, proceeding from one judgment, to another founded upon that one, (or the result of it.) §2. Language affords the signs by which these Langnage. operations of the mind are expressed and com- municated. An act of apprehension expressed in language, is called a term; an act oi judg- ment, a proposition ; an act of reasoning, an argument; (which, when regularly expressed is a syllogism ;) as e. g, " Every dispensation of Providence is beneficial ; Afflictions are dispensations of Providence, *^Therefore they are beneficial :" is a Syllogism; (the act of reasoning being N/' indicated by the word " therefore,'') it consists of three propositions, each of which has n^_ 56 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book. IL (necessarily) two terms, as " beneficial," '' dis- pensations of Providence," ^c* Terms. Language is employed for various purposes : Propositions. , , Syllogisms, e, g, thc provmcc of an historian is to convey r information ; of an orator, to persuade, 8fc, '^^p Logic is concerned with it only when employed •-^ for the purpose of reasoning, (i, e, in order to Cconvince ;) and whereas, in reasoning, tei^ms are ^/ liable to be indistinct, (i. e. without any clear, ,' determinate meaning,) propositions to he false, '^^^\r'' and arguments inconclusive. Logic undertakes directly and completely to guard against this [. last defect, and, incidentally and in a certain degree against the others, as far as can be done by the proper use of language : it is, therefore, (when regarded as an artf) ^Hhe Art of * In introducing the mention of language previously to the definition of Logic, I have departed from established practice, in order that it may be clearly understood, that Logic is entirely conversant about language : a truth which most writers on the subject, if indeed they were fully aware of it themselves, have certainly not taken due care /to impress on their readers. Aldrich's definition of Logic, for instance, does not give any hint of this. ■j" It is to be observed, however, that as a science is con- versant about knowledge only, an art is the application of knowledge to 'practice : hence Logic (as well as any other system of knowledge) becomes, when applied to practice, an art ; while confined to the theory of reasoning, it is strictly a science : and it is as such that it occupies the higher place in point of dignity, since it professes to de- velop some of the most interesting and curious intellectual phenomena. It is surely strange, therefore, to find in a Chap. I. § 2.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 57 <: employing language properly for the pui'pose \ of Reasoning." Its importance no one can rightly estimate who has not long and atten- tively considered how much our thoughts are influenced by expressions, and how much error, perplexity, and labour, are occasioned by a faulty use of language. A syllogism being, as aforesaid, resolvable into three propositions, and each proposition containing two terms ; of these terms, that which is spoken of is called the subject ; that which is said of it, the predicate; and these two are called the terms (or extremes) because, logically, the Subject is placed Jirst, and the Predicate last: and, in the middle, the Copula, which indicates the act of judgment, as by it the Predicate is affirmed or denied of the Sub- ject. The Copula must be either is or is not, the substantive verb being the only verb recog- nised by Logic : all others are resolvable, by means of the verb, "to be," and a participle or adjective : e,g, "the Romans conquered :" the word conquered is both copula and predicate, being equivalent to " were (Cop.) victorious" (Pred.)* treatise on Logic, a distinct dissertation to prove that it is an Art, and not a Science ! * It is proper to observe, that the copula, as such, has ^ no relation to time; but expresses merely the agreement or disagreement of two given terms : hence, if any other tense of the substantive verb, besides^ the present, is used, ■M 58 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL §3. It is evident, that a Term may consist either of one Word or of several ; and that it is not catogore- cvery word that is categorematic, i. e. capable of being employed by itself as a Term. Ad- verbs, Prepositions, S^c. and also Nouns in any syncategore- othcr casc bcsidcs the nominative, are syncate- gorematic, i. e. can only form part of a term. A nominative Noun may be by itself a term. A Verb (all except the substantive verb used Mixed. as the copula) is a mixed word, being resolvable into the Copula and Predicate, to which it is equivalent ; and, indeed, is often so resolved in the mere rendering out of one language into another ; as '' ipse adest" '' he is present." It is to be observed, however, that under ^^verb," we do not include the Infinitive, which is pro- perly a Noun-substantive, nor the Participle, which is a Noun-adjective. They are verbals ; being related to their respective verbs in re- spect of the things they signify : but not verbs, inasmuch as they differ entirely in their mode it is either to be understood as the same in sense, (the dif- ference of tense being regarded as a matter of grammatical convenience only ;) or else, if the circumstance of time really do modify the sense of the whole proposition, so as to make the use of that tense an essential, t^jen, this circumstance is to be regarded as a part of one of the terms : " at that time,'' or some such expression, being understood. Sometimes the substantive verb is both copula and predicate ; u e. where existence only is predi- cated : e. g. Deus est. Chap. I. §3.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 59 of signification. It is worth observing, that an Infinitive (though it often comes last in the sentence) is never the predicate, except when another Infinitive is the Subject : e. g, snbj. pred. / > f N **I hope to succeed :" i. e» ** to succeed is what I hope." It is to be observed, also, that in English there are two infinitives, one in " ing,'''* the same in sound and spelling as the participle present, from which, however, it should be carefully distinguished; e,g. ^^ rising early is healthful," and '' it is healthful to rise early," are equivalent. In this, and in many other cases, the English word IT serves as a represen- tative of the subject when that is put last : e,g. pred. sobj. " It is to be hoped that we shall succeed." An adjective (including participles) cannot, by itself, be made the subject of a proposition ; but is often employed as a predicate : as " Crassus was rich ;" though some choose to * Grammarians have produced much needless perplexity by speaking of the 'participle in " m^," being employed so and so ; when it is manifest that that very employment of the word constitutes it, to all intents and purposes, an infinitive and not a participle. The advantage of the infinitive in ing, is, that it may be used either in the nominative or in any oblique case ; not, as some suppose that it necessarily implies a habit ; e. g. " Seeing is believing :" " there is glory in dying for one's country :" " a habit of observing," ^c. 60 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL consider some substantive as understood in every such case, (e- g- rich man) and conse- quently do not reckon adjectives among Simple terms; (i, e, words which are capable, singly, of being employed as terms.) This, however, is a question of no practical consequence ; but I have thought it best to adhere to Aristotle's mode of statement. (See his Categ.) Simple- Of Simple-terms, then, (which are what the first part of Logic treats of) there are many divisions ; of which, however, one will be suffi- cient for the present purpose ; viz. into singular and common; because, though any term what- ever may be a subject, none but a common term can be affirmatively predicated of several others. Singular A siugular term stands for one individual, as anrl common terms, ^^ Csssar," "the Thames" (these, it is plain, cannot be said [or predicated] affirmatively, of any thing but themselves.) A common term stands for several individuals, (which are called its significates) : i, e. can be applied to any of them, as comprehending them in its single signification; as "man," "river," "great." The learner who has gone through the Analytical OutHne, will now be enabled to pro- ceed to the Second and Third Chapters either with or without the study of the remainder of what is usually placed in the First Chapter, and which is subjoined as a Supplement. See Chap. V. Chap. II. §1.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 61 Chap. II. — Of Propositions, § 1- / The second part of Logic treats of the pro- ^ position ; which is, ^' Judgment expressed in words" A Proposition is defined logically* "cl sentence Definition of y. . . proposition. ^ indicative" i, e. afnrming or denying ; (this ex- ^ eludes commands and questions.) " Sentence " I being the genus, and '' Indicative" the difference, ^u? subject is either a proper name, or a common term with a singular sign) they are reckoned as Universals, (see Book IV. Ch. iv. § 2.) because |in them we speak of the whole of the subject ; e.g. when we say, " Brutus w^as a Roman," w^e '* It is very perplexing to the learner, and needlessly so, to reckon indefinites as one class of propositions in respect of quantity. They must he either universal or particular, though it is not declared which. Such a mode of classifi- cation resembles that of some grammarians, who, among the Genders, enumerate the doubtful gender ! Chap. II. § 2.J SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 65 mean, the whole of Brutus : this is the general rule; but some singular propositions may fairly be reckoned particular ; i. e, when some qualifying word is inserted, which indicates that you are not speaking of the whole of the subject ; e. g, " Caesar was not wholly a tyrant ;" " this man is occasionally intem- perate ;" " non omnis moriar."* It is evident, that the subject is distributed in every universal proposition, and never in a particular; (that being the very difference be- tween universal and particular propositions :) but the distribution or non-distribution of the predicate, depends (not on the quantity, but) on the quality, of the proposition ; for, if any part of the predicate agrees with the subject, it must be affirmed and not denied of the sub- ject ; therefore, for an affirmative proposition to be true, it is sifficient that some part of the predicate agree with the subject ; and (for the same reason) for a negative to be true, it is necessary that the zvhole of the predicate should disagree with the subject : e, g. it is * It is not meant that these may not be, and that, the most naturally, accounted Universals ; but it is only by viewing them in the other light, that we can regularly state the Contradictory to a Singular proposition. Strictly speaking, when we regard such propositions as admitting of a variation in Quantity, they are not properly considered as Singular ; the subject being, e. g, not Ccesar, but the pai'ts of his character. F 55 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book II. true that ''learning is useful/' though the whole of the term " useful" does not agree with the term '' learning/' (for many things are useful besides learning,) but ''no vice is useful/' would be false, if any part of the term *' useful" agreed with the term "vice;" {i,e, if you could find any one useful thing which was a vice.) The two practical rules then to be observed respecting distribution, are, 1st. All universal propositions (and no par- ticular) distribute the subject, 2d. All negative (and no affirmative) the predicate.* * Hence, it is matter of common remark, that it is difficult to prove a Negative. At first sight this appears very obvious, from the circumstance that a Negative has one more Term distributed than the corresponding Affir- mative. But then, again, a difficulty may be felt in accounting for this, inasmuch as any Negative may be expressed (as we shall see presently) as an Affirmative, and vice versd. The proposition, e»g. that " such a one is not in the Town," might be expressed by the use of an equivalent term, " he is absent from the Town." The fact is, however, that in every case where the ob- servation as to the difficulty of proving a Negative holds good, it will be found that the proposition in question is contrasted with one which has really a term the less, distributed, or a term of less extensive sense. E. G. It is easier to prove that a man has proposed wise measures, than that he has never proposed an unwise measure. In fact, the one would be, to prove that " Some of his mea- sures are wise;" the other, tliat " Jll his measures are wise." And numberless such examples are to be found. But it will very often happen that there shall be Nega- Chap. II. § 3.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 67 It may happen indeed, that the whole of the predicate in an affirmative may agree with the subject ; e. g, it is equally true, that " all men are rational animals ;" and '' all rational ani- mals are men :" but this is merely accidental, and is not at all implied in the form of ex- pression, which alone is regarded in Logic* Of Opposition. §3. Two propositions are said to be opposed to each other, when, having the same subject S and predicate, they differ, in quantity, or / quality, or hotlu^ It is evident, that with any given subject and predicate, you may state four distinct propositions, viz. A, E, I, and O ; any two of which are said to be opposed; hence there are four different kinds of opposi- tion, viz. 1st. the two universals (A and E) tive propositions much more easily established than certain Affirmative ones on the same subject. E. G. That " The cause of animal-heat is not respiration," has been established by experiments ; but what the cause w, remains doubtful. See Note to Chap. III. § 5. * When, however, a Singular Term is the Predicate, it must, of course, be co-extensive with the subject; as " Romulus was the founder of Rome." f For Opposition of Terms, see Chap. V. F 2 eS ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL Contraries, are callcd contraries to each other ; 2d. the subcontra. two partlcular, (I and O) suhcontraries ; 3d. A snbaiterns. and I, or E and O, subalterns ; 4th. A and O, contradicfo- or E and I, contradictories, ries. As it is evident, that the truth or falsity of any proposition (its quantity and quahty being known) must depend on the matter of it, we must bear in mind, that, '' in necessary matter all affirmatives are true, and negatives false ; in impossible matter, vice versa; in contingent matter, all universals false, and particulars true ;" (e, g. " all islands (or some islands) are surrounded by water," must be true, be- cause the matter is necessary : to say, " no islands, or some — not, S^c" would have been false : again, ''some islands are fertile;" ''some are not fertile," are both true, because it is Contingent Matter: put "all" or ^^no," in- stead of " some,'' and the propositions will be false.) Hence it will be evident, that Con- traries will be both false in Contingent matter, but never both true : Suhcontraries, both true in Contingent matter, but never both false : Contradictories, always one true and the other false, 8fc. with other observations, which will be immediately made on viewing the scheme ; in which the four propositions are denoted by their symbols, the different kinds of matter by the initials, n, i, c, and the truth or falsity of each proposition in each matter, by the Chap. II. § 3.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 69 letter v. for (verum) true, f. for (falsum) false. n. V. i. f. c. f. n. V. i. f. C. V. By a careful study of this scheme, bearing in mind, and applying the above rule con- cerning matter, the learner will easily ehcit all the maxims relating to opposition ; as that, in the Subalterns, the truth of the particular (which is called the subalternate) follows from the truth of the universal (suhalternans), and the falsity of the universal from the falsity of the particular : that Subalterns differ in quan- tity alone; Contraries, and also Subcontraries, in quality alone ; Contradictories, in both : and hence, that if any proposition is known to be true, we infer that its Contradictory is false ; if false, its Contradictory true, S^c, 70 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book II. Of Conversion, §4. A proposition is said to be converted when its terms are transposed ; L e. when the sub- ject is made the predicate, and the predicate the subject : when nothing more is done, this is called simple conversion. No conversion is employed for any logical purpose, unless it be illative;^ i, e, when the truth of the Converse is implied by the truth of the Exposita, (or pro- position given \) e. g, " No virtuous man is a rebel, therefore No rebel is a virtuous man." " Some boasters are cowards, therefore Some cowards are boasters." Illative con. Couversiou can then only be illative when 710 term is distributed in the Converse, which was not distributed in the Exposita : (for if that be done, you will employ a term universally in the Converse, which was only used partially in the Exposita.) Hence, as E distributes both terms, and I, neither, these propositions may be illatively converted in the simple * The reader must not suppose from the use of the word " illative," that this conversion is a process of reasoning : it is in fact only stating the same Judgment in another form. version. \ Chap. II. § 4.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 71 manner ; (vide § 2. ) But as A does not dis- tribute the predicate, its simple conversion would not be illative ; {e, g, from '' all birds are animals/' you cannot infer that '' all ani- mals are birds/') as there would be a term distributed in the converse, which was not, before. We must therefore limit its quantity from universal to particular, and the Conver- sion will be illative : {e. g. '' some animals are birds/') this might be fairly named con- version by limitation; but is commonly called " Conversion per accidens" E may thus be con- conve verted also. But in O, whether the quantity be changed or not, there will still be a term (the predicate of the converse) distributed, which was not before : you can therefore only convert it illatively, by changing the quality ; i. e. considering the negative as attached to the predicate instead of to the copula, and thus regarding it as I. One of the terms will then not be the same as before ; but the proposition will be equipollent {i, e, convey the same meaning) ; e, g. " some members of the uni- versity are not learned :" you may consider " not-learned" as the predicate, instead of *' learned ;" the proposition will then be I, and of course may be simply converted, '' some who are not learned are members of the uni- versity." This may be named conversion by negation; or as it is commonly called, by rsion per accidcns. *72 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book II. contra-posi- contra-positiOTiJ^ A may also be fairly con- Uon. verted m this way, e, g, " Every poet is a man of genius ; therefore He who is not a man of genius is not a poet :" (or, " None but a man of genius can be a poet ;'* or, "a man of genius alone can be a poet.") For (since it is the same thing to affirm some attribute of the subject, or to deni/ the absence of that attribute) the original proposition is precisely equipollent to this, subj. pred. " No poet is not-a-man-of-genius ;" which, being E, may of course be simply converted. Thus, in one of these three ways, every proposition may be illatively converted : viz. E, /, simply ; A, O, hy negation; A, E, by limitation. Note, that as it was remarked that, in some affirmatives, the whole of the predicate does actually agree with the subject, so, when this is the case, and is granted to be so, A may be illatively converted, simply ; but this is an accidental circumstance. In a just Definition, this is always the case ; for there the terms being exactly equivalent (or, as they are called, * No mention is made by Aldrich of tliis kind of con- version ; but it has been thought advisable to insert it, as being in frequent use, and also as being employed in this treatise for the direct reduction of Baroko and Bokardo. Chap. III. § 1.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 73 convertible terms) it is no matter which is made the subject, and which the predicate, e. g, ^^ a good government is that which has the happiness of the governed for its object ;" if this be a right definition, it will follow that ^^ a government which has the happiness of the governed for its object is a good one." Most propositions in mathematics are of this description : e, g. " All equilateral triangles are equiangular ;" and " All equiangular triangles are equilateral." Chap. III. — Of Arguments, § 1- The third operation of the mind, viz. rea- soning, (or discourse) expressed in words, is argument; and an argument stated at full length, and in its regular form, is called a syllogism: the third part of Logic therefore treats of the syllogism. Every Argument* syiiogism. * I mean, in the strict technical sense ; for in popular use the word Argument is often employed to denote the latter of these two parts alone : e.g. "This is an Argument to prove so and so ;" " this conclusion is established by the Argument :" i. e. Premises. — See Appendix, No. I. art. Argument. 74 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL consists of two parts; that which is proved; and that bj/ fneans of which it is proved : the former is called, before it is proved, the ques- S tion ; when proved, the conclusion (or infer- '^ence ;) that which is used to prove it, if stated / last (as is often done in common discourse,) is j called the reason, and is introduced by " be- \ cause," or some other causal conjunction ; i {e. g, Caesar deserved death, because he was a ^ tyrant, and all tyrants deserve death." If the conclusion be stated last (which is the strict logical form, to which all Reasoning may be reduced) then that which is employed to prove it is called the premises,* and the Con- , elusion is then introduced by some illative \ conjunction, as *^ therefore," e,g. *' All tyrants deserve death : Caesar was a tyrant ; therefore he deserved death. "f * Both the premises together are sometimes called the antecedent. t It may be observed that the definition here given of X an argument is in the common treatises of logic laid down S as the definition of a syllogism ; a word which I have \.confined to a more restricted sense. There cannot evi- ( dently be any argument^ whether regularly or irregularly > expressed, to which the definition given by Aldrich, for ;' instance, would not apply ; so that he appears to employ *y '^ " syllogism " as synonymous with ''argument." But be- ''( sides that it is clearer and more convenient, when we /have these two words at hand, to employ them in the two /senses respectively which we want to express, the truth Chap. III. § 1.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 75 Since, then, an argument is an expression Definition of /in which "from something laid down and granted as true (i, e, the Premises) something I else (i, e, the Conclusion) heyond this must he admitted to be true, as following necessarily (or resulting) from the other ; and since Logic is wholly concerned in the use of language, it follows that a Syllogism (which is an argument stated in a regular logical form) must be " an argument so expressed, that the con- Definition of clusiveness of it is manifest from the mere • fo7xe of the expression,' i, e. without consider- ing the meaning of the terms : e, g, in this syllogism, '' Y is X, Z is Y, therefore Z is X :" the conclusion is inevitable, whatever terms X, Y, and Z, respectively are understood to c stand for. And to this form all legitimate arguments may ultimately be brought. is, that in so doing I have actually conformed to Aldrich's practice : for he generally, if not always, employs the term syllogism in the very sense to which I have confined (' it : viz. to denote an argument stated in regular logical S form ; as, e. g. in a part of his work (omitted in the late { editions) In which he is objecting to a certain pretended \ syllogism in the work of another writer, he says, " valet certe argumentum ; syllogismus tamen est falsissimus," &c. Now (waiving the exception that might be taken at this use of *' falsissimus" nothing being, strictly, true or false, but a proposition) it is plain that he limits the word ( "syllogism" to the sense in which it is here defined, and '' is consequently inconsistent with his own definition of it. dictum 76 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL § 2. Aristotle's The rule or axiom (commonly called " dic- tum de omni et nullo") by which Aristotle explains the validity of this argument, is this : ^' whatever is predicated of a term distributed, whether affirmatively or negatively, may he pre- dicated in like manner of every thing contained under it" Thus, in the examples above, X is predicated of Y distributed, and Z is contained under Y (i. e, is its subject ;) therefore X is predicated of Z : so " all tyrants," Sf'c. (p. 74.) This rule may be ultimately applied to all arguments ; (and their validity ultimately rests on their conformity thereto) but it cannot be directly and immediately applied to all even of pure categorical syllogisms ; for the sake of ■A brevity, therefore, some other axioms are commonly applied in practice, tb avoid the - occasional tediousness of reducing all syllo- gisms to that form in which Aristotle's dictum is applicable.* • Instead of following Aldrich's arrangement, in laying down first the canons which apply to all the figures of categorical syllogisms, and then going back to the "dic- tum of Aristotle " which applies to only one of them, I have pursued what appears a simpler and more philo- sophical arrangement, and more likely to impress on the learner's mind a just view of the science; viz. 1st. to give the rule (Aristotle's dictum) which applies to the Chap. III. §2.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 77 We will speak first of pure categorical syllogisms ; and the axioms or canons by which their vahdity is to be explained : viz. first, if two terms agree with one and the same third, they agree with each other: secondly, if one term agrees and another disagrees with one and the same third, these two disagree with each other. On the former of these canons rests the validity of affirmative conclusions ; on the latter, of negative: for no categorical syllogism can be faulty which does not violate these canons; none correct which does : hence on these two canons are built the rules or cautions which are to be observed with respect to syllogisms, for the purpose of ascertaining whether those canons have been strictly ob- served or not. 1st. Every syllogism has three, and only three terms: viz, the middle term, and the two terms (or extremes, as they are commonly called) of the Conclusion or Question. Of most clearly and regularly-constructed argument, the Syllogism in the first figure, to which all reasoning may be reduced ; then the canons applicable tp all categoricals ; then, those belonging to the hypotheticals ; and lastly, to treat of the Sorites; which is improperly placed by (Aldrich before the hypotheticals. By this plan the pro- ivince of strict Logic is extended as far it can be ; every 1 kind of argument which is of a syllogistic character, and /accordingly directly cognizable by the rules of logic, being enumerated in natural order. 78 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL these, 1st, the subject of the conclusion is called the minor term; 2d, its predicate, the major term ; and 3d, the middle term, is that with which each of them is separately com- pared, in order to judge of their agreement or disagreement with each other. If there- fore there were two middle terms, the ex- tremes, (or terms of the conclusion) not being both compared to the same, could not be conclusively compared to each other. 2d. Every syllogism has three, and only three propositions ; viz. 1st, the major premiss (in which the major term is compared with the middle:) 2d, the minor premiss (in which the minor term is compared with the middle ;) and 3d, the Conclusion, in which the Minor term is compared with the Major. 3d. Note, that if the middle term is amhi- guous, there are in reality two middle terms, in sense, though but one in sound. An am- biguous middle term is either an equivocal term used in different senses in the two pre- mises ; (e,g. " Li^ht is contrary to darkness ; Feathers are light ; therefore Feathers are contrary to darkness :") or a term not distributed: for as it is then used to stand for a part only of its signijicates, it may happen that one of the extremes may '^ Chap. III. §2.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 79 have been compared with one part of it, and the other with another part of it ; e. g. " White is a colour, Black is a colour ; therefore Black is white." Again, ** Some animals are beasts, Some animals are birds ; therefore Some birds are beasts." The middle term therefore must be distri- buted once, at least, in the premises ; (i, e, by being the subject of an universal, or predicate of a negative. Chap. ii. § 2. p. 63,) and once is sufficient ; since if one extreme has been compared to a ^art of the middle term, and another to the whole of it, they must have been both compared to the same, 4th. iVo term must be distributed in the con- clusion which was not distributed in one of the premises; for that (which is called an illicit process, either of the Major or the Minor term) would be to employ the whole of a term in the Conclusion, when you had em- ployed only a part of it in the Premiss ; and thus, in reality, to introduce a fourth term : e,g, " All quadrupeds are animals, A bird is not a quadruped ; therefore It is not an animal." — Illicit process of the major. ■{ . ■ 5th. From negative premises you can infer nothing. For in them the Middle is pro- nounced to disagree with both extremes; not. 80 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL to agree with both ; or, to agree with one, and disagree with the other; therefore they can- not be compared together ; e, g, " A fish is not a quadruped;" " A bird is not a quadruped," proves nothing. 6th. If one premiss he negative, the conch- sion must he negative ; for in that premiss the middle term is pronounced to disagree with one of the extremes, and in the other premiss (which of course is affirmative by the pre- ceding rule) to agree with the other extreme ; therefore the extremes disagreeing with each other, the conclusion is negative. In the same manner it may be shown, that to prove a negative conclusion one of the Premises must he a negative, * By these six rules all Syllogisms are to be ^ tried ; and from them it will be evident ; 1st, that nothing can he proved from two particular Premises; (for you will then have either the middle Term undistributed, or an illicit pro- cess: e. g, * Aldrich has given twelve rules, which I found might more conveniently be reduced to six. No syllogism can be faulty which violates none of these six rules. It is much less perplexing to a learner not to lay down as a distinct rule, that, e. g. against particular premises ; which is properly a result of the foregoing ; since a syllogism with two particular premises would offend against either R. 3. or R. 4. Chap. III. § 3.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 81 *' Some animals are sagacious : Some beasts are not sagacious : Some beasts are not animals.") And, for the same reason, 2dly, that if one of the Premises be particular, the Conclusion must be particular ; e, g, " All who fight bravely deserve reward ; Some soldiers fight bravely ;" you can only infer that ** Some soldiers deserve reward :" for to infer a universal Conclusion would be an illicit process of the minor. But from two universal Premises you cannot always infer a universal Conclusion; e,g, " All gold is precious, All gold is a mineral : therefore Some mineral is precious."* And even when we can infer a universal, we are always at liberty to infer a particular ; since what is predicated of all may of course be predicated of some. Of Moods. §3. : When we designate the three propositions of a syllogism in their order, according to * Aldrich, by a strange oversight, has so expressed himself as to imply (though he could hardly mean it) that we always may, if we will, infer a universal conclusion from two universal premises. G 82 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL their respective quantity and quality (L e, their symbols) we are said to determine the mood of the syllogism ; e. g, the example just above, " all gold, Sfc." is in the mood A, A, I. As there are four kinds of propositions, and three propositions in each syllogism, all the possible ways of combining these four, (A, E, I, O,) by threes, are sixty-four. For any one of these four may be the major premiss, each of these four majors may have four different minors, and of these sixteen pairs of premises, each may have four different conclusions. 4x4 (=16) X 4 = 64. This is a mere arithmetical calculation of the moods, without any regard to the logical rules : for many of these moods are inadmissible in practice, from violating some of those rules ; e, g, the mood E, E, E, must be rejected as having negaitve premises ; I, O, O, for particular premises; and many others for the same faults ; to which must be added I, E, O, for an illicit process of the major, in every figure. By examination then of all, it will be found that, of the sixty-four, there remain but eleven moods which can be used in a legitimate syllogism, viz. A, A, A, A, A, I, A, E, E, A, E, O, A, I, I, A, O, O, E, A, E, E, A, O, E, I, O, I, A, I, O, A, O. Chap. III. § 4.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 83 Of Figure, §4. j^ The Figure of a syllogism consists in the N., situation of the Middle term with respect to the Extremes of the Conclusion, (i, e, the major and minor term,) When the Middle term is made the subject of the major premiss, and the predicate of the minor, that is called the first U Figure; (which is far the most natural and clear of all, as to this alone Aristotle's Dictum may be at once applied.) In the second Figure yj the Middle term is the predicate of both pre- mises : in the third, the subject of both : in the "" fourth the predicate of the Major premiss, and the subject of the Minor, (This is the most awkward and unnatural of all, being the very reverse of the first.) Note, that the proper order is to place the Major premiss ^r^^, and the Minor second; but this does not constitute the Major and Minor premises ; for that pre- miss (wherever placed) is the Major, which contains the major term, and the Minor, the minor (v. R. 2. p. 78.) Each of the allowable moods mentioned above will not be allowable in every Figure ; since it may violate some of the foregoing rules, in one Figure, though not in another : e. g, I, A, I, is an allowable mood in the third Figure ; but in the first it would g2 84 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL have an undistributed middle.^ So A, E, E, would in the first Figure have an illicit process of the major, but is allowable in the second ; and A, A, A, which in the first Figure is allow- able, would in the third have an illicit process of the minor : all which may be ascertained by trying the different Moods in each figure, as per scheme. Let X represent the major term, Z the minor, Y the middle. 1st Fig. 2d Fig. 3d Fig. 4th Fig. Y, X, X, Y, Y, X, X,Y, Z, Y, Z, Y, Y, Z, Y, Z, z,x, Z, X, Z, X, Z, X. The Terms alone being here stated, the quantity and quality of each Proposition (and consequently the Mood of the whole Syllo- gism) is left to be filled up : (i, e, between Y and X, we may place either a negative or affirmative Copula : and we may prefix either a universal or particular sign to Y.) By apply- ing the Moods then to each Figure, it will be found that each Figure will admit six Moods r A' ♦ €. g. Some restraint is salutary : all restraint is un- ( — 1 pleasant : something unpleasant is salutary. Again: Some I A herbs are fit for food : nightshade is an herb : some I nightshade is fit for food. Chap. III. §4.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 85 only, as not violating the rules against undis- tributed middle y and against illicit process : and of the Moods so admitted, several (though vahd) are useless, as having a particular Con- clusion, when a universal might have been drawn ; e. g. A, A, I, in the first Figure, "All human creatures are entitled to liberty; All slaves are human creatures ; therefore Some slaves are entitled to liberty." Of the twenty-four Moods, then, (six in each Figure) five are for this reason neg- lected: for the remaining nineteen, logicians have devised names to distinguish both the Mood itself, and the Figure in which it is. found ; since when one Mood (i, e, one m itself, without regard to Figure) occurs in two different Figures, (as E, A, E, in the first and second) the mere letters denoting the mood would not inform us concerning the figure. In these names, then, the three .vowels denote the propositions of which the ) Syllogism is composed : the consonants (be- ,> sides their other uses, of which hereafter) /serve to keep in mind the Figure of the ( Syllogism. Fig. 1. bArbArA, cElArEnt, dArll, fErlOque prio- ns. Fig. 2. cEsArE, cAmEstrEs, fEstInO, bArOkO,* secundse. * Or, Fakoro, see § 7. 86 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book II. ( tenia, dArAptI, dlsAmls, dAtlsI, f ElAptOn, Fig. 3. < bOkArdO,* f ErIsO, habet : quarta insuper ( addit. Fig. 4. brAmAntIp, cAmEnEs, dImArls, fEsApo, frEsIsOn. By a careful study of these mnemonic lines (which must be committed to memory) you will perceive that A can only be proved in the first Figure, in which also every other Proposition may be proved; that the second proves only negatives; the third only parti- \ culars ; that the first Figure requires the / major premiss to be universal, and the minor, affirmative, ^c; with many other such ob- servations, which will readily be made, (on trial of several Syllogisms, in different Moods) and the reasons for which will be found in the foregoing rules : e, g, to show why the second figure has only negative Conclusions, we have only to consider, that in it the mid- dle term being the predicate in both premises, would not be distributed unless one premiss were negative ; (Chap. ii. § 2.) therefore the Conclusion must be negative also, by Chap, iii. § 2, Rule 6. One Mood in each figure may suffice in this place by way of example : First, Barbara, viz, (bAr.) " Every Y is X ; (bA) every Z is Y; therefore (rA) every Z is X : " e, g. let the major term (which is * Or, Dokamo, see § 7. Chap. III. § 4.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 87 represented by X) be " one who possesses all virtue ;" the minor term (Z) ^' every man who possesses one virtue ;" and the middle term (Y) *' every one who possesses prudence ;" and you will have the celebrated argument of Aristotle, Eth, sixth book, to prove that the virtues are inseparable ; viz, *' He who possesses prudence, possesses all virtue ; He who possesses one virtue, must possess prudence ; therefore He who possesses one, possesses all." . Second, Camestres, (cAm) '^ every X is Y ; (Es) no Z is Y ; (trES) no Z is X." Let the major term (X) be " true philosophers," the minor (Z) " the Epicureans ;" the middle (Y) ^^ reckoning virtue a good in itself;" and this will be part of the reasoning of Cicero, Off. book first and third, against the Epicureans. Third, Darapti, viz. (dA) '' every Y is X ; {rA'p) every Y is Z ; therefore {tT) Some Z is X :" e.g. *' Prudence has for its object the benefit of individuals ; but prudence is a virtue : therefore some virtue has for its object the benefit of the individual," is part of Adam Smith's reasoning {Moral Sentiments) against Hutcheson and others, who placed all virtue in benevolence. Fourth, Camenes, viz. (cAm) " every X is Y ; CE?iJ no Y is Z ; therefore (Es) no Z is X :" e. g. 88 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL " Whatever is expedient, is conformable to nature ; Whatever is conformable to nature, is not hurtful to society ; therefore What is hurtful to society is never expedient." is part of Cicero's argument in Off. Lib. iii. ; but it is an inverted and clumsy way of stating what would much more naturally fall into the first Figure ; for if you examine the Propositions of a Syllogism in the fourth Figure, beginning at the Conclusion, you will see that as the major term is predicated of the minor, so is the minor of the middle, and that again of the major ; so that the major appears to be merely 'predicated of itself. Hence the five Moods in this Figure are seldom or never used ; some one of the fourteen (moods with names) in the first three Figures; being the forms into which all arguments may most readily be thrown ; but of these, the four in the first Figure are the clearest and most natural ; as to them Aristotle's dictum will immediately apply.* And as it is on this dictum * With respect to the use of the first three Figures (for the fourth is never employed but by an accidental awkwardness of expression) it may be remarked, that the First is that into which an argument will be found to fall the most naturally, except in the following cases :— First, When we have to disprove something that has been main- tained, or is likely to be believed, our arguments will usually be found to take most conveniently the form of the Second Figure : viz. we prove that the thing we are ( Chap. III. § 4.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 89 that all Reasoning ultimately depends, so all arguments may be in one way or other brought into some one of these four Moods ; / and a Syllogism is, in that case, said to be ^- reduced: (L e, to the first Jigure,) These four \ are called the perfect moods, and all the rest < imperfect, speaking of cannot belong to such a Class, either because it wants what belongs to the whole of that Class, (Cesare) or because it has something of which that Class is desti- tute; (Camestres) e.g. "No impostor would have warned his followers, as Jesus did, of the persecutions they would have to submit to :" and again, " An enthusiast would have expatiated, which Jesus and his followers did not, on the particulars of a future state." The same observations will apply, mutatis mutandis^ when a Particular conclusion is sought, as in Festino and Baroko. The arguments used in the process called the "Ab- scissio Infiniti," will in general be the most easily referred to this Figure. See Chap. v. § 1. subsection 6. The Third Figure is, of course, the one employed when the Middle term is Singular, since a Singular term can only be a Subject. This is also the form into which most arguments will naturally fall that are used to establish an objection (Enstasis of Aristotle) to an opponent's Pre- miss, when his argument is such as to require that premiss to be Universal. It might be called, therefore, the Enstatic Figure. E. G. If any one contends that " this or that doctrine ought not to be admitted, because it cannot be explained or comprehended," his suppressed major premiss may be refuted by the argument that " the connexion of the Body and Soul cannot be explained or comprehended," &c. A great part of the reasoning of Butler's Analogy may be exhibited in this form. 90 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book II. Ostenswe Reduction. § 5. In reducing a Syllogism, we are not, of (^ course, allowed to introduce any new Term / or Proposition, having nothing granted but the truth of the Premises ; but these Pre- mises are allowed to be illatively converted (because the truth of any Proposition implies that of its illative converse) or transposed: by taking advantage of this liberty, where there is need, we deduce (in Figure 1st,) from the i Premises originally given, either the very same ) Conclusion as the original one, or another > from which the original Conclusion follows by illative conversion ; e, g, Darapti, " All wits are dreaded ; All wits are admired ; Some who are admired are dreaded," into Darii, by converting by limitation (per accidens) the minor Premiss. *' All wits are dreaded; Some who are admired are wits ; therefore Some who are admired are dreaded." Camestres, " All true philosophers account virtue a good in itself; The advocates of pleasure do not account, ^c. Therefore they are not true philosophers," Chap. III. § 5.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 91 reduced to Celarent, by simply converting the minor, and then transposing the Premises. " Those who account virtue a good in itself, are not advocates of pleasure ; All true philosophers account virtue, ^c, : therefore No true philosophers are advocates of pleasure." This Conclusion may be illatively converted into the original one. Baroko;'' e, g. Reduction by means of " Every true patriot is a friend to religion; by^negaUon. Some great statesmen are not friends to religion ; Some great statesmen are not true patriots," to Ferio, by converting the major hy negatio?i, (contraposition), vide Chap. ii. § 4. " He who is not a friend to religion, is not a true patriot : Some great statesmen, Sj-c." and the rest of the Syllogism remains the same : only that the minor Premiss must be considered as affirmative, because you take '' not-a-friend-to-religion," as the middle term. In the same manner Bokardof to Darii ; e.g, " Some slaves are not discontented ; All slaves are wronged ; therefore Some who are wronged are not discontented." Convert the major by negation (contrapo- sition) and then transpose them; the Con- clusion will be the converse hy negation of the * Or Fakoro, considered i, e. as Festino. t Or Dokamo, considered i. e, as Disamis. 92 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL original one, which therefore may be inferred from it ; e, g, ** All slaves are wronged ; Some who are not discontented are slaves ; Some who are not discontented are wronged." In these ways (by what is called Ostensive Reduction, because you prove, in the first figure, either the veri/ same Conclusion as be- fore, or one which implies it) all the imperfect Moods may be reduced to the four perfect ones. But there is also another way, called Reductio ad impossibile, §6. By which we prove (in the first figure) not directly that the original Conclusion is true, but that it cannot be false ; i. e, that an ab- surdity would follow from the supposition of its being false ; e, g, " All true patriots are friends to religion ; Some great statesmen are not friends to religion ; Some great statesmen are not true patriots." If this Conclusion be not true, its contra- dictory must be true ; viz, '* All great statesmen are true patriots." Let this then be assumed, in the place of the Chap. III. § 7.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 93 minor Premiss of the original Syllogism, and a false conclusion will be proved ; e, g, bAr. " All true patriots are friends to religion ; bA, All great statesmen are true patriots ; rA, All great statesmen are friends to religion :" for as this Conclusion is the Contradictory of the original minor Premiss, it must be false, since the Premises are always supposed to be granted; therefore one of the Premises (by which it has been correctly proved) must be false also; but the major Premiss (being one of those originally granted) is true ; therefore the falsity must he in the minor Premiss; which is the contradictory of the original con- clusion ; therefore the original Conclusion '^ must be true. This is the indirect mode of / Reasoning. (See Rhetoric, Part I. Ch. ii. § 1.) § 7. _ This kind of Reduction is seldom employed but for Bar oho and Bokardo, which are thus reduced by those who confine themselves to simple Conversion, and Conversion by limita- tion, (per accidens ;) and they framed the names of their Moods, with a view to point out the manner in which each is to be re- duced ; viz, B, C, D, F, which are the initial letters of all the Moods, indicate to which Mood of the first figure (Barbara, Celarent, Darii, and Ferio) each of the others is to be reduced : m indicates that the Premises are to 94 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL be transposed; s and p, that the Proposition denoted by the vowel immediately preceding, is to be com^erted; s, simply, p, per accidens, (by limitation :) thus, in Camestres, (see ex- ample, p. 87,) the C indicates that it must be reduced to Celarent ; the two ss, that the minor Premiss and Conclusion must be con- verted simply ; the m, that the Premises must be transposed. The P, in the mood Bramantip, denotes that the premises warrant a univer- sal conclusion in place of a particular. The /, though of course it cannot be illatively converted per accidens, viz: so as to become A, yet is thus converted in the Conclusion, because as soon as the premises are trans- posed (as denoted by the m,) it appears that a universal conclusion follows from them. K (which indicates the reduction ad im- possihile) is a sign that the Proposition, denoted by the vowel immediately before it must be left out, and the contradictory of the Conclusion substituted ; viz. for the minor Premiss in Baroko and the major in Bokardo. But it has been already shown, that the Conversion by contraposition (by negation) will enable us to reduce these two Moods, ostensively,* * If any one should choose that the names of these moods should indicate this, he might make K the index of conversion by negation ; and then the names would be, by a slight change, FaJcoro and Dokamo. Chap. IV. § 1.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 95 Chap. IV. SUPPLEMENT TO CHAP. III. Of Modal Syllogisms, and of all Arguments besides regular and Pure-Categorical Syl- logisms, Of Modals. §1. Hitherto we have treated o^pure categorical Propositions, and the Syllogisms composed of such. A pure categorical proposition is styled by some logicians a proposition '^ de inesse" from its asserting simply that the Predicate is or is not (in our conception) contained in the Subject ; as '' John killed Thomas." A modal proposition asserts that the Predicate is or is not contained in the Subject in a certain mode or manner ; as, " accidentally," '' wil- fully," ^c. A Modal proposition may be stated as a :pure one, by attaching the Mode to one of \the Terms: and the Proposition will in all j respects fall under the foregoing rules ; e. g. *^^ John killed Thomas wilfully and maliciously;" here the Mode is to be regarded as part of the mT 96 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL Predicate. " It is probable that all knowledge is useful ;" '' probably useful" is here the Pre- dicate. But when the Mode is only used to express the necessary, contingent, or impos- sible connexion of the Terms, it may as well be attached to the Subject : e. g, '' man is necessarily mortal ; " is the same as ^^ all men are mortal:" ^^ injustice is in no case expe- dient," corresponds to '^no injustice is ex- pedient :" and " this man is occasionally intemperate," has the force of a particular: (vide Chap. ii. § 2. note.) It is thus, and thus only, that two singular Propositions may be contradictories ; e, g. " this man is never in- ^. temperate," will be the contradictory of the foregoing. Indeed every sign (of universality \ or particularity) may be considered as a > Mode, Since, however, in all Modal Propositions, you assert that the dictum (i, e, the assertion ■'. itself) and the Mode, agree together, or dis- ? agree, so, in some cases, this may be the most convenient way of stating a Modal, purely : subj.cop. pred. subject. I — I I — I ,- ^ / — — ^ e, g, " It is impossible that all all men should subjec t. be virtuous." Such is a proposition of the snbj. cop. pred. Apostle Paul's : '' This is a faithful saying, ^c, subject. that Jesus Christ came into the world to save Chap. IV. § 1.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 97 gubj. sinners." In these cases one of your Terms (the subject) is itself an entire Proposition, In Enghsh, the word In is often used in expressing one proposition combined with another, in such a manner as to make the two, one proposition : e, g. " You will have a formidable opponent to encounter in the Em- peror:" this involves two propositions; 1st, " You will have to encounter the Emperor ;" 2d, '' He will prove a formidable opponent :" this last is implied by the word in, which de- notes (agreeably to the expression of Logicians mentioned above, when they speak of a pro- position "de «/zesse") that that Predicate is ^ contained in that Subject. It may be proper to remark in this place, rthat we may often meet with a Proposition \ whose drift and force will be very different, according as we regard this or that as its Pre- dicate. Indeed, properly speaking, it may be \ considered as several different Propositions, / each indeed implying the truth of all the rest, jbut each having a distinct Predicate; the (division of the sentence being varied in each ( case ; and the variations marked, either by (the collocation of the words, the intonation / of the voice, or by the designation of the em- J ^^pliatic words, viz, : the Predicate, as scored \ / under, or printed in italics. E, G, " The \ ^ H 98 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book 1 1. Organon of Bacon was not designed to 4 5 6 supersede the Organon of Aristotle:" this might be regarded as, at least, six different propositions: if the word numbered (1) were in italics, it would leave us at liberty to suppose that Bacon might have designed to supersede by some work of his, the Organon of Aristotle ; but not by his own Organon : if No. 2 were in italics, we should understand the author to be contending, that whether or no any other author had composed an Or- ganon with such a design. Bacon at least did not : if No. 3, then we should understand him to maintain that whether Bacon's Or- ganon does or does not supersede Aristotle's, no such design at least was entertained : and so with the rest. Each of these is a distinct Proposition; and though each of them im- plies the truth of all the rest, (as may easily be seen by examining the example given) one of them may be, in one case, and another, in an- other, the one which it is important to insist on. r-^ We should consider in each case what Question it is that is proposed, and what an- / swer to it would, in the instance before us, ) be the most opposite or contrasted to the one I to be examined. E, G, " You will find this ' doctrine in Bacon," may be contrasted, either with, ''You will find in Bacon a different Chap IV. § l.j SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 99 doctrine," or with, " You will find this doctrine in a different author T And observe, that when a proposition is contrasted with one which has a different pre- dicate, the Predicate is the emphatic word ; as '^this man is a murderer ;'' i. e, not one who has slain another accidentally/, or in self- defence : " this man is a murderer," with the Copula for the emphatic word, stands opposed to ^' he is not a murderer ;" a proposition with the same terms, but a different Copula.* It will often happen that several of the Pro- positions which are thus stated in a single sen- tence, may require, each, to be distinctly stated and proved : e. g, the Advocate may have to prove, first the fact, that '' John killed Tho- mas ; " and then, the character of the act, that '^the killing was wilful and malicious." See Praxis, at the end of the vol. See also Ele- ments of Rhetoric, Part I. Ch. iii. § 5. * Thus if any one reads (as many are apt to do) " Thou shalt not steal," — " Thou shalt not commit adultery," he implies the question to be, whether we are commanded to steal or to forbear : but the question really is, what things are forbidden; and the answer is, "Thou shalt not steal;" " Thou shalt not commit adultery,^' &c. The connexion between Logic and correct Delivery is further pointed out in Rhei. App. I. Strictly speaking, the two cases I have mentioned coin- cide; for when the "is "or the "not" is emphatic, it becomes properly the Predicate : viz, " the statement of this man's being a murderer, is true" or, " is not true," H 2 100 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL Of Hypotheticals, §2. A hypothetical Proposition is defined to be, two or more categoricals united hy a Copula (or conjunction), and the different kinds of hypothetical Propositions are named from their respective conjunctions ; viz, conditional, disjunctive, causal, S^c. When a hypothetical Conclusion is inferred from a hypothetical Premiss, so that the force of the Reasoning does not turn on the hypo- thesis, then the hypothesis (as in Modals) must be considered as part of one of the Terms; so that the Reasoning will be, in effect, categorical : e, g, predicate. " Every conqueror is either a hero or a villain : Caesar was a conqueror ; therefore predicate . He was either a hero or a villain." " Whatever comes from God is entitled to reverence ; subject. If the Scriptures are not wholly false, they must come from God ; If they are not wholly false, they are entitled to reve- rence." But when the Reasoning itself rests on the hypothesis (in which way a categorical Con- clusion may be drawn from a hypothetical Premiss,) this is what is called a hypothetical Chap. IV. §3.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 101 Syllogism; and rules have been devised for ascertaining the vahdity of such Arguments at once, without bringing them into the categorical form. (And note, that in these Syllogisms the hypothetical Fremiss is called the major, and the categorical one the minor,) They are of two kinds, conditional and dis- junctive. Of Conditionals, § 3. A Conditional Proposition has in it an illa- tive force ; i, e, it contains two, and only two categorical Propositions, whereof one results from the other (or follows from it,) e, g, antecedent. ** If the Scriptures are not wholly false, consequent. they are entitled to respect." That from which the other results is called the antecedent ; that which results from it, the con- sequent (consequens ;) and the connexion be- tween the two (expressed by the word '' if") the consequence (consequentia,) The natural order is, that the antecedent should come before the consequent; but this is frequently reversed : e, g, " the husbandman is well off if /he knows his own advantages;" Virg. Geor, lAnd note, that the truth or falsity of a con- Sditional Proposition depends entirely on the 102 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book II. consequence : e, g, " if Logic is useless, it deserves to be neglected;" here both Ante- cedent and Consequent are false: yet the whole Proposition is true ; L e. it is true that the Consequent follows from the Antecedent. '' If Cromwell was an Englishman, he was an usurper," is just the reverse case : for though it is true that ^'Cromwell was an English- man/' and also '' that he was an usurper," yet it is not true that the latter of these Pro- positions depends on the former ; the whole Proposition, therefore, is false, though both Antecedent and Consequent are true. A Con- ditional Proposition, in short, may be con- sidered as an assertion of the validity/ of a certain Argument ; since to assert that an argument is valid, is to assert that the Con- clusion necessarily results from the Premises, whether those Premises be true or not. The meaning, then, of a Conditional Propo- sition is this ; that the antecedent being granted, the consequent is granted : which may be con- sidered in two points of view : first, if the Antecedent he true, the Consequent must be true ; hence the first rule ; the antecedent being granted, the consequent may he inferred; se- condly, if the Antecedent were true, the Con- sequent woidd be true ; hence the second rule ; the consequent being denied, the antecedent may he dented; for the Antecedent must in that ve and Destruc- Chap. IV. §3.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 103 case be false ; since if it were true, the Con- sequent (which is granted to be false) would be true also : e, g, '' if this man has a fever, he is sick : " here, if you grant the antecedent^ the first rule applies, and you infer the truth of the Consequent ; " he has a fever, there- fore he is sick : " if A is B, C is D ; but A is B, therefore C is D (and this is called a construc- tive Conditional Syllogism ;) but if you dent/ the consequent (L e. grant its contradictory) the second rule applies, and you infer the contradictory of the antecedent; "Yie is not sick, therefore he has not a fever ;" this is the construct. destructive Conditional Syllogism : if A is B, tive. C is D ; C is not D, therefore A is not B. Again, " if the crops are not bad, corn must be cheap," for a major ; then, " but the crops are not bad, therefore corn must be cheap," is Constructive. " Corn is not cheap, therefore the crops are bad," is Destructive. '^ If every increase of population is desirable, some mi- sery is desirable ; but no misery is desirable ; therefore some increase of population is not desirable," is Destructive. But if you affirm (^ the consequent, or deny the antecedent, you can / infer nothing ; for the same Consequent may <^' follow from other Antecedents : e. g. in the ( example above, a man may be sick from other \ disorders besides a fever ; therefore it does not follow, from his being sick, that he has a tiunats. 104 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book II. / fever; or (for the same reason) from his not ( having a fever, that he is not sick. There are, therefore, two, and only two, kinds of Conditional Syllogisms; the constructive, > founded on the first rule, and answering to ^ direct Reasoning ; and the destructive, on the second, answering to indirect ; being in fact a mode of throwing the indirect form of reason- ing into the direct : e, g. If C be not the centre of the circle, some other point must be ; which is impossible : therefore C is the centre. (Euclid, B. III. Pr, 1.) Conversion Aud uotc, that a Conditional Proposition of Condi- ^ ^ ^ may (like the categorical A) be converted by negation ; i. e, you may take the contradictory of the consequent, as an antecedent, and the contradictory of the antecedent, as a consequent : e.g, "if this man is not sick he has not a fever." By this conversion of the major Pre- miss, a Constructive Syllogism may be reduced to a Destructive, and vice versa, (See § 6. p. 92.) Of Disjunctives. § 4. A Disjunctive Proposition may consist of any number of categoricals ; and of these, some one, at least, must be true, or the whole Proposition will be false : if, therefore, one or Chap. IV. § 4.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 1 05 more of these categoricals be denied {L e. granted to be false) you may infer that the remaining one, or (if several) some one of the remaining ones, is true : e, g, '^ either the earth is eternal, or the work of chance, or the work of an intelligent Being ; it is not eternal, nor the work of chance ; therefore it is the work of an intelligent Being." " It is either spring, summer, autumn, or winter ; but it is neither spring nor summer; therefore it is either autumn or winter." Either A is B, or C is D ; but A is not B, therefore C is D. Note, that in these examples (as well as in very many others) it is implied not only that one of the members (the categorical Proposi- tions) must be true, but that onl^ one can be true ; so that, in such cases, if one or more members be affirmed, the rest may be denied; [the members may then be called exclusive :~\ e, g. " it is summer, therefore it is neither spring, autumn, nor winter ;" '' either A is B, or C is D ; but A is B, therefore C is not D." But this is by no means universally the case ; e, g, " virtue tends to procure us either the esteem of mankind, or the favour of God:" here both members are true, and consequently from one being affirmed we are not authorized to deny the other. It is evident that a disjunctive Syllogism may easily be reduced to a conditional; e, g. 106 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL if it is not spring or summer, it is either autumn or winter, 8fc, The Dilemma^, §5, is a complex kind of Conditional Syllogism. 1st. If you have in the major Premiss se- veral antecedents all with the same consequent, then these Antecedents, being (in the minor) disjunctively granted (i, e, it being granted that some one of them is true), the one common consequent may be inferred (as in the case of a simple Constructive Syllogism :) e, g, if A is B, C is D ; and if X is Y, C is D ; but either A is B, or X is Y ; therefore C is D. '' If the blest in heaven have no desires, they will be perfectly content ; so they will, if their desires * The account usually given of the Dilemma in Logical treatises is singularly perplexed and unscientific. Aldrich, in speaking of it, abstains from all use of Logical terms, \ and speaks in a loose, vague, and rhetorical manner. And { it is remarkable that all the rules he gives respecting it, ( and the faults against which he cautions us, relate exclu- V sively to the Subject-matter : as if one were to lay down as rules respecting a Syllogism in Barbara^ " 1st. Care must be taken that the major Premiss be true ; 2dly. that the minor Premiss be true!" Most, if not all, writers on this point either omit to tell us whether the Dilemma is a kind of conditional^ or of disjunctive argument ; or else refer it to the latter class, on account of its having one disjunctive Premiss ; though it clearly belongs to the class of conditionals. Chap. IV. §5.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 107 are fully gratified ; but either they will have no desires, or have them fully ^ratified; there- simple con- ' ./ O ' structive Di- fore they will be perfectly content." Note, in ^^•"™'*- this case, the two conditionals which make up the major Premiss may be united in one Pro- position by means of the word '* whether:" e,g, "whether the blest, Sf'c, have no desires, or have their desires gratified, they will be con- tent." 2d. But if the several antecedents have each complex con- strnctive Di- a different consequent, then the Antecedents, •^"''"'*- being, as before, disjunctively gi'anted, you can only disjunctively infer the consequents : e. g. if A is B, C is D ; and if X is Y, E is F : but either A is B, or X is Y ; therefore either C is D, or E is F. " If iEschines joined in the public rejoicings, he is inconsistent ; if he did not, he is unpatriotic : but he either joined, or not, therefore he is either incon- sistent, or unpatriotic." (Demost. For the Crown.) This case, as well as the foregoing, is evidently constructive. In the Destructive form, whether you have one Antecedent with several Consequents, or several Antecedents either with one, or with several Consequents ; in all these cases, if you deny the whole of the Consequent, or Conse- quents, you may in the conclusion deny the zohole of the Antecedent or Antecedents : e,g, "if the world were eternal, the most useful 108 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL arts, such as printing, 8fc, would be of un- known antiquity: and on the same supposi- tion, there would be records long prior to the Mosaic ; and likewise the sea and land, in all parts of the globe, might be expected to maintain the same relative situations now as formerly : but none of these is the fact : therefore the world is not eternal." Again, "if the world existed from eternity, there would be records prior to the Mosaic ; and if it were produced by chance, it would not bear marks of design: there are no records prior to the Mosaic ; and the world does bear marks of design : therefore it neither existed from eternity, nor is the work of chance." These are commonly called Dilemmas, but hardly differ from simple conditional Syllo- gisms, two or more being expressed together. Nor is the case different if you have one antecedent with several consequents, which consequents you disjunctively deny; for that comes to the same thing as wholly denying them ; since if they be not all true, the one antecedent must equally fall to the ground; and the Syllogism will be equally simple : e, g,* " if we are at peace with France by virtue of the treaty of Paris, we must acknowledge the sovereignty of Buonaparte ; and also we must * A.D. 1815. Chap. IV. §5.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 109 acknowledge that of Louis : but we cannot do both of these ; therefore we are not at peace/' S^c; which is evidently a simple Destructive. The true Dilemma is, " a conditional Syllogism with several* antecedents in the major, and a disjunctive minor T hence, 3d. That is most properly called a destructive Destructive Dilemma. Dilemma, which has (like the constructive ones) a disjunctive minor Premiss ; i, e. when you have several Antecedents with each a different Consequent; which Consequents (instead of wholly denying them, as in the case lately mentioned) you disjunctively deny ; and thence, in the Conclusion, deny disjunctively the An- tecedents : e. g. if A is B, C is D ; and if X is Y, E is F : but either C is not D, or E is not F ; therefore, either A is not B, or X is not Y. " If this man were wise, he would not speak irreverently of Scripture in jest; and if he were good he would not do so in earnest ; but he does it, either in jest, or earnest; there- fore he is either not wise or not good.** Every Dilemma may be reduced into two or Resolution of more simple Conditional Syllogisms: e.g, "If i^schines joined, Sfc, he is inconsistent ; he did join, Sfc, therefore he is inconsistent ;" and * The name Dilemma implies precisely two antecedents ; and hence it is common to speak of " the horns of a di- lemma;" but it is evident there may be either two or more. a Dilemma. 110 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL again, ^' if iEschines did not join, Sf'c. he is unpatriotic ; he did not, Sfc. therefore he is unpatriotic." Now an opponent might deny either of the minor Premises in the above Syllogisms, but he could not deny both; and therefore he must admit one or the other of the Conclusions : for, when a Dilemma is employed, it is supposed that some one of the Antecedents must be true (or, in the destruc- tive kind, some one of the Consequents false), but that we cannot tell which of them is so ;- and this is the reason why the argument is stated in the form of a Dilemma. Sometimes it may happen that both ante- cedents may be true, and that we may be aware of this ; and yet there may be an ad- vantage in stating (either separately or con- jointly) both arguments, even when each proves the same conclusion, so as not to derive any additional confirmation from the other; — still, I say, it may sometimes be advisable to state both, because, of two pro- positions equally true, one man may deny or be ignorant of the one, while he admits the other, and another man, vice versd. From what has been said, it may easily be seen that all Dilemmas are in fact conditional \ syllogisms; and that Disjunctive Syllogisms may also be reduced to the form of Condi- tionals : but as it has been remarked, that r= Chap. IV. § G.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 1 1 1 all Reasoning whatever may ultimately be / brought to the one test of Aristotle's '' Dic- \ turn/' it remains to show how a Conditional Syllogism may be thrown into such a form, that that test will at once apply to it ; and I this is called the Reduction of Hypotheticals.'^ §6. For this purpose we must consider every Conditional Proposition as a universal affir- mative categorical Proposition, of which the * Aldrich has stated, through a mistake, that Aristotle ^ utterly despised Hypothetical Syllogisms, and thence made ; no mention of them ; but he did indicate his intention to • treat of them in some part of his work, which either was V not completed by him according to his design, or else (in / common with many of his writings) has not come down . to us. Aldrich observes, that no hypothetical argument is valid which cannot be reduced to a categorical form ; and this is evidently agreeable to what has been said at the begin- ning of Chap. iii. ; but then he has unfortunately omitted I to teach us how to reduce Hypotheticals to this form ; ■ except in the case where the Antecedent and Consequent i chance to have each the same subject ; in which case, he 1 tells us to take the minor Premiss and Conclusion as an \ Enthymeme, and fill that up categorically ; e,g. "If Caesar was a tyrant, he deserved death : he was a tyrant ; there- fore he deserved death;" which may easily be reduced to a categorical form, by taking as a major Premiss, " all ^' tyrants deserve death." But when (as is often the case) the Antecedent and Consequent have not each the same 112 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL Terms are entire Propositions, viz, the ante- cedent answering to the Subject, and the con- sequent to the Predicate; e. g, to say, "if Louis is a good king, France is Hkely to prosper," is equivalent to saying, "the case of Louis being a good king, is a case of France being Hkely to prosper:" and if it be granted, as a minor Premiss to the Condi- tional Syllogism, that " Louis is a good king," that is equivalent to saying, " the present case is the case of Louis being a good king;" from which you will draw a conclusion in Barbara, {viz. "the present case is a case of France being likely to prosper,") exactly subject, (as in the very example he gives, " if A is B, C is D,") he gives no rule for reducing such a Syllogism as has a Premiss of this kind ; and indeed leads us to sup- pose that it is to be rejected as invalid, though he has just before demonstrated its validity. And this is likely to have been one among the various causes which occasion many learners to regard the whole system of Logic as a string of idle reveries, having nothing true, substantial, or practically useful in it ; but of the same character with the dreams of Alchymy, Demonology, and judicial Astrology. Such a mistake is surely the less inexcusable in a learner, when his master first demonstrates the validity of a certain argument, and then tells him that after all it is good for nothing ; (prorsus repudiandum.) In the late editions of Aldrich's Logic, all that he says of the reduction of Hypothetical is omitted; which certainly would have been an improvement, if a more correct one had been substituted ; but as it is, there is a complete hiatus in the system. Chap. IV. §6.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 113 equivalent to the original Conclusion of the Conditional Syllogism ; viz, " France is likely to prosper." As the Constructive Condition may thus be reduced to Barbara, so may the De- structive, in like manner, to Celarent : e, g, ^' if the Stoics are right, pain is no evil : but pain is an evil ; therefore the Stoics are not right;" is equivalent to — '^ the case of the Stoics being right, is the case of pain being no evil ; the present case is not the case of pain being no evil ; therefore the present case is not the case of the Stoics being right." This is Camestres, which, of course, is easily re- duced to Celarent. Or, if you will, all Condi- tional Syllogisms may be reduced to Barbara, by considering them all as constructive ; which may be done, as mentioned above, by con- verting by negation the major Premiss. (See p. 104.) The reduction of Hypotheticals may always be effected in the manner above stated ; but as it produces a circuitous awkwardness of expression, a more convenient form may in some cases be substituted : e. g, in the ex- ample above, it may be convenient to take ^' true" for one of the Terms: "that pain is no evil is not true ; that pain is no evil is asserted by the Stoics; therefore something asserted by the Stoics is not true." Some- times again it may be better to unfold the I 114 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book II. argument into two Syllogisms : e, g. in a for- mer example ; first, '' Louis is a good king ; the governor of France is Louis; therefore the governor of France is a good king." And then, second, " every country governed by a good king is likely to prosper," S^c. [A Di- lemma is generally to be reduced into tv^^o or more categorical Syllogisms.] And when the antecedent and consequent have each the same Subject, you may sometimes reduce the Conditional by merely substituting a categori- cal major Premiss for the conditional one : e, g. instead of '^ if Caesar was a tyrant, he deserved death; he was a tyrant, therefore he deserved death ;" you may put for a major, '' all tyrants deserve death ;" Sfc, But it is of no great consequence, whether Hypothetical I are reduced in the most neat and concise man- i ner or not ; since it is not intended that they ! should be reduced to categoricals, in ordinary i practice, as the readiest way of trying their I validity, (their own rules being quite sufficient I for that purpose ;) but only that we should he {able, if required, to subject any argument |whatever to the test of Aristotle's Dictum, in forder to show that all Reasoning turns upon one simple principle. Chap. IV. §7.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 115 Oj Enthymeme, Sorites, S^c. §7. There are various abridged forms of Argu- ment which may be easily expanded into regular Syllogisms : such as, 1st. The Enthymeme, which is a Syllogism Enthymeme. with one Premiss suppressed. As all the Terms will be found in the remaining Premiss and Conclusion, it will be easy to fill up the Syllogism by supplying the Premiss that is wanting, whether major or minor : e. g. " Caesar was a tyrant ; therefore he deserved death." ^' A free nation must be happy ; therefore the English are happy." This is the ordinary form of speaking and writing. It is evident that Enthymemes may be filled up hypothetically.* 2d. When you have a string of Syllogisms, in the first figure, in which the Conclusion of * It is to be observed, that the Enthymeme is not strictly syllogistic ; i, e. its conclusiveness is not apparent from the mere form of expression, without regard to the mean- ing of the Terms ; because it is from that we form our judgment as to the truth of the suppressed Premiss. The expressed Premiss may be true, and yet the Con- clusion false. The Sorites, on the other hand, is strictly syllogistic ; as may be seen by the examples. If the Premises stated be true, the conclusion must be true. I 2 116 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book I L ■ each is made the Premiss of the next, till you arrive at the main or ultimate Conclusion of all, you may sometimes state these briefly, in Sorites. a form called Sorites ; in which the Predicate of the first proposition is made the Subject of the next ; and so on, to any length, till finally the Predicate of the last of the Premises is predicated (in the Conclusion) of the Subject of the first : e, g, k is B^B is C, ^C is D^ D is E ; therefore A is E. '' The EngHsh are a brave people ; a brave people are free ; a free people are happy ; therefore the English are happy." A Sorites then, has as many middle Terms as there are intermediate Propositions between the first and the last ; and conse- quently, it may be drawn out into as many separate Syllogisms ; of which the first will have, for its major Premiss, the second, and for its minor, i\\e first of the Propositions of the Sorites ; as may be seen by the example. The reader will perceive also by examination of that example, and by framing others, that the first proposition in the Sorites is the only minor premiss that is expressed : when the whole is resolved into distinct syllogisms, each conclusion becomes the minor premiss of the succeeding syllogism. Hence, in a Sorites, the^r^^ proposition, and that alone, of all the premises, may be particular ; because in the first figure the minor may be particular, but /} Chap. IV. §7.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 117 not the major ; (see Chap. iii. § 4) and all the other propositions, prior to the conclusion, are major premises. It is also evident that there may be, in a Sorites, one, and only one, negative premiss, viz, the last : for if any of the others were negative, the result would be that one of the syllogisms of the Sorites would have a negative 7ninor premiss ; which is (in the 1st Fig.) incompatible with correctness. See Chap. iii. § 4. A string of Conditional Syllogisms may fl\^^^^^''"'^ in like manner be abridged into a Sorites ; e. g, if A is B, C is D ; if C is D, E is F ; if E is F, G is H ; but A is B, there- fore G is H. '^ If the Scriptures are the word of God, it is important that they should be well explained ; if it is important, Sfc, they deserve to be diligently studied : if they de- serve, Sfc, an order of men should be set aside for that purpose ; but the Scriptures are the word, ^c; therefore an order of men should be set aside for the purpose, ^c.;"* in a destructive Sorites, you, of course, go back from the denial of the last consequent to the denial of the first antecedent : ^^ G is not H ; therefore A is not B." * Hence it is evident how injudicious an arrangement has been adopted by former writers on Logic, who have treated of the Sorites and Enthymeme before they en- tered on the subject of Hypotheticals. 118 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL Induction. Those who have spoken of Induction or of Example. Example, as a distinct kind of Argument in a Logical point of view, have fallen into the ." common error of confounding Logical with ) Rhetorical distinctions, and have wandered / from their subject as much as a writer on the \ orders of Architecture would do who should I introduce the distinction between buildings of brick and of marble. Logic takes no cogni- zance of Induction, for instance, or of a priori reasoning, S^c, as distinct Forms of argument ; for when thrown into the syllogistic form, and when letters of the alphabet are substituted for the Terms (and it is thus that an Argu- ment is properly to be brought under the cog- nizance of Logic), there is no distinction / between them ; e, g. a '' Property which '\ belongs to the ox, sheep, deer, goat, and S antelope, belongs to all horned animals; ru- ) mination belongs to these ; therefore to all." ^:. This, which is an inductive argument, is evi- / dently a Syllogism in Barbara, The essence of an inductive argument (and so of the other kinds which are distinguished from it) consists ^/^ not in the form of the Argument, but in the relation which the Subject-matter of the Pre- mises bears to that of the Conclusion.* * See Rhetoric, Part L Ch. ii. § 6. Nothing probably has tended more to foster the prevailing error of consi- dering Syllogism as a particular kind of argument, than Chap. IV. § 7.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 119 3d. There are various other abbreviations Abbievia- tions. commonly used, which are so obvious as hardly to call for explanation : as where one of the Premises of a Syllogism is itself the Conclusion of an Enthymeme which is ex- pressed at the same time : e, g. " all useful / studies deserve encouragement ; Logic is y such (since it helps us to reason accurately,) ^ therefore it deserves encouragement ;" here the minor Premiss is what is called an En- thymematic sentence. The antecedent in that ( minor Premiss (i. e, that which makes it S Enthymematic) is called by Aristotle the Pro- syllogism, It is evident that you may, for brevity, substitute for any term an equivalent ; as in Fq»'VHients. the last example, " it,'' for *^ Logic ;" " such,'' for ^^a useful study," Sf'c, The doctrine of Conversion, laid down in the Second Chapter, furnishes many equivalent propositions, since each is equivalent to its illative converse. The division of nouns also (for which see Chap. V.) supplies many equivalents ; e, g, if A is the genus of B, B must be a species of A : if A is the cause of B, B must be the effect of A. 4th. And many Sylloarisms, which at first syiiogisms •'*'*--' apparently sight appear faulty, will often be found, on '"'^'"■'"*- the inaccuracy just noticed, which appears in all or most of the logical works extant. See Dissertation on the Province of Reasoning, Q\i, i. 120 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IL examination, to contain correct reasoning, and, consequently, to be reducible to a re- gular form ; e, g, when you have, apparently, negative Premises, it may happen, that by considering one of them as affirmative, (see Chap. ii. § 4. p. 72), the Syllogism will be regular : e, g, *' no man is happy who is not secure : no tyrant is secure ; therefore no tyrant is happy," is a Syllogism in Celarent.* Sometimes there will appear to be too many terms ; and yet there will be no fault in the Reasoning, only an irregularity in the ex- pression : e, g. " no irrational agent could produce a work which manifests design; the universe is a work which manifests design ; therefore no irrational agent could have pro- duced the universe." Strictly speaking, this Syllogism has five terms ; but if you look to the meaning, you will see, that in the first Premiss (considering it as a part of this Argu- ment) it is not, properly, " an irrational agent" that you are speaking of, and of which you * If this experiment be tried on a Syllogism which has really negative Premises, the only effect will be to change that fault into another : viz. an excess of Terms, or (which is substantially the same) an undistributed middle ; e. g. " an enslaved people is not happy ; the English are not enslaved ; therefore they are happy ;" if « enslaved" be regarded as one of the Terms, and " not enslaved " as another, there will manifestly be four. Hence you may see how very little difference there is in reality between the different faults which are enumerated. Chap. IV. §7.] SYNTHETICAL COMPENDIUM. 121 predicate that it could not produce a work manifesting design ; but rather it is this '' work/' S^c. of which you are speaking, and of which it is predicated that it could not be produced by an irrational agent; if, then, you state the Propositions in that form, the Syllogism will be perfectly regular. (See § 1. of this Supplement.) Thus, such a Syllogism as this, " every true patriot is disinterested ; few men are disin- terested; therefore few men are true patriots;" might appear at first sight to be in the second Figure, and faulty ; whereas it is Barbara, with the Premises transposed: for you do not really predicate of '^ few men," that they are '' disinterested," but of " disinterested persons,'' that they are " few." Again, '' none but candid men are good reasoners ; few infidels are c^^ndid ; few infidels are good reasoners." In this it will be most convenient to consider the major Premiss as being, '' all good rea- soners are candid," (which of course is pre- cisely equipollent to its illative converse by negation;) and the minor Premiss and Con- clusion may in like manner be fairly expressed thus — " most infidels are not candid ; there- fore most infidels are not good reasoners :" which is a regular Syllogism in CamestresJ^ Sa^x^o * The reader is to observe that the term employed as the Subject of the minor premiss, and of the conclusion, m re 3 1" £ g • 3 1 ^ t>: S 1" 2 3 ^ CD 2 a.3 K "^ (C § S2 t3 ro p 52 B. §- ii 1 ?g- 0)' i^ RP ft! 3 g ft> T ft 5^ r- ' f* 03 IS tSft ft g ft i- !=§ 1:1. 3 sl CO - o'52. 3 3. is 3 O fD ^^ i-S o ft >-n §.^ a. ft ■ -^ o' < 3 C I PS S'ft'S 3'^5- g-5 ►2 S: 1-^ o 3 §• 52. o *«■ O rt a ft ^ pf (t ^ 3- 9^ m O 3 P II o r 3 §5.j OF FALLACIES. 163 §5. On each of the Fallacies which have been thus enumerated and distinguished, I propose to offer some more particular remarks ; but before I proceed to this, it will be proper to premise two general observations, 1st. on the importance, and 2d. the difficulty, of detect- ing and describing Fallacies : both have been already slightly alluded to ; but it is requisite that they should here be somewhat more fully and distinctly set forth. 1st. It seems by most persons to be taken for granted that a Fallacy is to be dreaded importance /»!• T -I'lTi-i***^ fietecting merely as a weapon fashioned and wielded by Fallacies. a skilful sophist ; or if they allow that a man may with honest intentions slide into one un- consciously, in the heat of argument, still they seem to suppose that where there is no dispute, there is no cause to dread Fallacy ; whereas there is much danger, even in what may be called solitary reasoning, of sliding unawares into some Fallacy, by which one may be so far deceived as even to act upon the conclusion thus obtained. By solitary reasoning I mean the case in which one is not seeking for argu- ments to prove a given question, but labouring to elicit from one's previous stock of know- ledge some useful inference,'^ To select one * See the chapter on " inferring and proving," (Book IV. Ch. iii.) in the Dissertation on the Province of Reasoning. M 2 164 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book III. from innumerable examples that might be cited, and of which some more will occur in the subsequent part of this essay; it is not improbable that many indifferent sermons have been produced by the ambiguity of the word ''plain:'' a young divine perceives the truth of the maxim, that "for the lower orders one's language cannot be too plain:" (i, e, clear and perspicuous, so as to require no learning nor ingenuity to understand it,) and when he proceeds to practise, the word "plain'' indistinctly flits before him, as it were, and often checks him in the use of ornaments of style, such as metaphor, epithet, antithesis, S^c, which are opposed to " plain- ness" in a totally different sense of the word ; being by no means necessarily adverse to perspicuity, but rather, in many cases, con- ducive to it; as may be seen in several of the clearest of our Lord's discourses, which are the very ones that are the most richly adorned with figurative language. So far in- deed is an ornamented style from being unfit for the vulgar, that they are pleased with it even in excess. Yet the desire to be "plain," com- bined with that dim and confused notion which the ambiguity of the word produces in such as do not separate in their minds, and set before themselves, the two meanings, often causes them to write in a dry and bald style. 1 5.] OF FALLACIES. 165 which has no advantage in point of perspicuity, and is least of all suited to the taste of the vulgar. The above instance is not drawn from mere conjecture, but from actual expe- rience of the fact. Another instance of the strong influence of in«uc..cc of words oil words on our ideas may be adduced from a^''""^'"*- widely different subject : most persons feel a certain degree of surprise on first hearing of the result of some late experiments of the Agricultural Chemists, by which they have ascertained that universally what are called heavy soils are specifically the lightest ; and vice versa. Whence this surprise ? for no one ever distinctly believed the established names to be used in the literal and primary sense, in consequence of the respective soils having been weighed together; indeed it is obvious on a moment's reflection that tenacious clay- soils (as well as muddy roads) dixe figuratively called heavy, from the difficulty of ploughing, or passing over them, which produces an effect like that of bearing or dragging a heavy weight ; yet still the terms *' light" and " heavy," though used figuratively, have most undoubtedly introduced into men's minds something of the ideas expressed by Ijiem in their primitive sense. The same words, when applied to articles of diet> have produced im- portant errors; many supposing some article 166 ELEMENTS OF LOGIG. [Book III. of food to be light of digestion from its being specifically light. So true is the ingenious ob- servation of Hobbes, that " words are the counters of wise men, and the money of fools."* * *• Men imagine," says Bacon, '' that their minds have the command of Language ; but it often happens that Language bears rule over their mind." Some of the weak and absurd arguments which are often urged against Suicide may be traced to the influence of words on thoughts. When a Christian moralist is called on for a direct Scriptural precept against suicide, instead of reply- ing that the Bible is not meant for a complete code of laws, but for a system of motives and principles, the answer frequently given is " thou shalt do no murder ;" and it is assumed in the arguments drawn from Reason, as well as in those from Revelation, that Suicide is a species of Murder ; viz. because it is called se\f-murder; and thus, deluded by a name, many are led to rest on an unsound argument, which, like all other fallacies, does more harm than good, in the end, to the cause of truth. Suicide, if any one considers the nature and not the name of it, evidently wants the most essential characteristic of mur- der, viz, the hurt and injury done to one's neighbour, in depriving him of life, as well as to others by the insecurity they are in consequence liable to feel. And since no one can, strictly speaking, do injustice to himself, he cannot, in the literal and primary acceptation of the words, be said either to rob or to murder himself. He who deserts the post to which he is appointed by his great Master, and presumptuously cuts short the state of probation graciously allowed him for working out his salvation, (whether by action or by patient endurance,) is guilty indeed of a grievous sin, but of one not the least analogous in its character to murder. It implies no inhumanity. It is much more closely allied to the sin of wasting life in § 5.] OF FALLACIES. 167 More especially deserving of attention is the influence of Analogical Terms in leading men into erroneous notions in Theology ; where the most important terms are analogi- cal ; and yet they are continually employed in Reasoning, without due attention (oftener through want of caution than by unfair de- sign) to their analogical nature ; and most of the errors into which theologians have fallen may be traced, in part, to this cause.* In speaking of the importance of refuting Fallacies, (under which name I include, as will be seen, any false assumption employed as a premiss) this consideration ought not to be overlooked ; that an unsound Principle, which has been employed to establish some mis- indolence, or in trifling pursuits, — that life which is be- stowed as a seed-time for the harvest of immortality. What is called in familiar phrase " killing time," is, in truth, an ' approach, as far as it goes, to the destruction of one's own / life : for " Time is the stuff life is made of." / It is surely wiser and safer to confine ourselves to such arguments as will bear the test of a close examination, than to resort to such as may indeed at the first glance be more specious and appear stronger, but which, when exposed, will too often leave a man a dupe to the fallacies on the opposite side. But it is especially the error of controversialists to urge every thing that can be urged ; to snatch up the first weapon that comes to hand ; (*' furor arma ministrat ;") without waiting to consider what is TRUE. * See the notes to Ch. v. § 1. of the Dissertation sub- joined. ^.,4^^^* C^ 168 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL chievously false Conclusion, does not at once become harmless^ and too insignificant to be worth refuting, as soon as that conclusion is given up, and the false Principle is no longer employed for that particular use. It may equally well lead to some other no less mis- chievous result. " A false premiss, according as it is combined with this, or with that, true one, will lead to two different false conclu- sions. Thus, if the principle be admitted^ that any important rehgious errors ought to be forcibly suppressed, this may lead either to persecution on the one side, or to latitudi- narian indifference on the other. Some may be led to justify the suppression of heresies by the civil sword ; and others, whose feelings revolt at such a procedure, and who see per- secution reprobated and discountenanced by those around them, may be led by the same principle to regard religious errors as of little or no importance, and all religious persuasions as equally acceptable in the sight of God." * Thus much, as to the extensive practical in- fluence of Fallacies, and the consequent high importance of detecting and exposing them. §6. Diificuuyof 2dly. The second remark is, that while detecting Fallacies, souud rcasouiug is ever the more readily * The Errors of Romanism, Ch. v. § 2. p. 228. § 6.] OF FALLACIES. 169 admitted, the more clearly it is perceived to be such. Fallacy, on the contrary, being rejected as soon as perceived, v^ill, of course, be the more likely to obtain reception, the more it is obscured and disguised by obliquity and com- plexity of expression : it is thus that it is the most likely either to slip accidentally from the careless reasoner, or to be brought forward deliberately by the Sophist. Not that he ever wishes this obscurity and complexity to be perceived; on the contrary, it is for his purpose that the expression should appear as clear and simple as possible, while in reality it is the most tangled net he can contrive. Thus, whereas it is usual to express our rea- soning, elliptically, so that a Premiss (or even two or three entire steps in a course of argu- ment) which may be readily supplied, as being perfectly obvious, shall be left to be under- stood, the Sophist in like manner suppresses what is not obvious, but is in reality the weakest part of the argument : and uses every other contrivance to withdraw our attention (his art closely resembling the juggler's) from the quarter where the Fallacy lies. Hence the uncertainty before mentioned, to which class any individual Fallacy is to be referred : and hence it is that the difficulty of detecting and exposing Fallacy, is so much greater than that of comprehending and developing a process of 170 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL sound argument. It is like the detection and apprehension of a criminal in spite of all his arts of concealment and disguise ; when this is accomplished, and he is brought to trial with all the evidence of his guilt produced, his con- viction and punishment are easy ; and this is precisely the case with those Fallacies which are given as examples in Logical treatises; they are in fact already detected, by being stated in a plain and regular form, and are, as it were, only brought up to receive sentence. Or again, fallacious reasoning may be com- pared to a perplexed and entangled mass of accounts, which it requires much sagacity and close attention to clear up, and display in a regular and intelligible form ; though when this is once accomplished, the whole appears so per- fectly simple, that the unthinking are apt to undervalue the skill and pains which have been employed upon it. Moreover, it should be remembered that a very long discussion is one of the most effec- tual veils of Fallacy. Sophistry, like poison, is at once detected, and nauseated, when presented to us in a concentrated form; but // '^ a Fallacy which when stated barely, in a few ) sentences, would not deceive a child, may deceive half the world, if diluted in a quarto / volume. For, as in a calculation, one single figure incorrectly stated will enable us to §6.] OF FALLACIES. J 71 arrive at any result whatever, though every other figure, and the vs^hole of the operations, be correct, so, a single false assumption in any process of reasoning, though every other be true, will enable us to draw what conclusion we please ; and the greater the number of true assumptions, the more likely it is that the false one will pass unnoticed.* But when you single out one step in the course of the reasoning, and exhibit it as a Syllogism with one Premiss true and the other false, the sophistry is easily perceived. To use another illustration, it is true in a course of argument, as in Mechanics, that " nothing is stronger than its weakest part;" and consequently a * I have seen a long argument to prove that the potato is not a cheap article of food ; in which there was an ela- borate, and perhaps correct, calculation of the produce per acre of potatoes, and of wheat, — the quantity lost in bran — expense of grinding, dressing, ^c. and an assumption slipped in, as it were incidentally, that a given quantity of potatoes contains hut one-tenth part of nutritive matter equal to bread : from all which (and there is probably but one groundless assertion in the whole) a most triumphant result was deduced. This, however, gained the undoubt- ing assent of a Review by no means friendly to the author, and usually noted more for scepticism than for ready assent ! " All things," says an apocryphal writer, " are double, one against another, and nothing is made in vain :" unblushing assertors of falsehood seem to have a race of easy believers provided on purpose for their use : men who will not indeed believe the best-established truths of religion, but are ready to believe any thing else. 172 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL chain which has one faulty hnk will break: but though the number of the sound links adds nothing to the strength of the chain, it adds much to the chance of the faulty one's escaping observation. To speak, therefore, of all the Fallacies that have ever been enumerated as too glaring and obvious to need even being mentioned, because the simple instances given in logical treatises, and there stated in the plainest and consequently most easily detected form, are such as would (in that form) deceive no one; — this, surely, shows extreme weakness, or else unfairness. It may readily be allowed, indeed, that to detect individual Fallacies, and bring them under the general rules, is a harder task than to lay down those general rules ; but this does not prove that the latter office is trifling or useless, or that it does not essen- tially conduce to the performance of the other : there may be more ingenuity shown in detecting and arresting a malefactor, and convicting him of the fact, than in laying down a law for the trial and punishment of such persons ; but the latter office, i, e, that of a legislator, is surely neither unnecessary nor trifling. It should be added that a close observation and Logical analysis of Fallacious arguments^ as it tends (according to what has been already §7.] OF FALLACIES. 173 said) to form a habit of mind well suited for the practical detection of Fallacies ; so, for that very reason-, it will make us the more careful in making allowance for them : L e, to bear in mind how much men in general are hable to be influenced by them. E, G, a re- futed argument ought to go for nothing ; but in fact it will generally prove detrimental to the cause, from the Fallacy which will be pre- sently explained. Now, no one is more likely to be practically aware of this, and to take precautions accordingly, than he who is most versed in the whole theory of Fallacies; for the best Logician is the least likely to calcu- late on men in general being such. §7. Of Fallacies in form, enough has already been said in the pre- ceding Compendium : and it has been re- marked above, that it is often left to our choice to refer an individual Fallacy to this head or to another. To the present class we may the most con- veniently refer those Fallacies, so common in practice, of supposing the conclusion false, because the Premiss is false, or because the argument is unsound ; and inferring the truth of the Premiss from that of the Conclusion ; 174 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL e.g. if any one argues for the existence of a God, from its being universally believed, a man might perhaps be able to refute the argu- ment by producing an instance of some nation destitute of such belief; the argument ought then (as has been observed above) to go for nothing: but many would go further, and think that this refutation had disproved the existence of a God ; in vs^hich they would be guilty of an illicit process of the major term ; viz, '' whatever is universally believed must be true ; the existence of a God is not uni- versally believed; therefore it is not true.'* Others again from being convinced of the truth of the conclusion would infer that of the Premises ; which would amount to the Fal- lacy of an undistributed middle : viz, " what is universally beheved, is true ; the existence of a God is true ; therefore it is universally believed." Or, these Fallacies might be stated in the hypothetical form ; since the one evi- dently proceeds from the denial of the antece- dent to the denial of the consequent ; and the other from the establishing of the consequent to the inferring of the antecedent ; which two Fallacies will often be found to correspond respectively with those of IlUcit process of the major, and Undistributed middle. Fallacies of this class are very much kept out of sight, being seldom perceived even by §7.] OF FALLACIES. 175 those who employ them ; but of their prac- tical importance there can be no doubt, since it is notorious that a weak argument is always, in practice, detrimental ; and that there is no absurdity so gross which men will not readily admit, if it appears to lead to a conclusion of which they are already convinced. Even a candid and sensible writer is not unlikely to be, by this means, misled, when he is seeking for arguments to support a conclusion which he has long been fully convinced of himself; L e, he will often use such arguments as would never have convinced himself, and are not hkely to convince others, but rather (by the operation of the converse Fallacy) to confirm in their dissent those who before dis- agreed with him. It is best therefore to endeavour to put yourself in the place of an opponent to your own arguments, and consider whether you could not find some objection to them. The applause of one's own party is a very unsafe ground for judging of the real force of an argumentative work, and consequently of its real utility. To satisfy those who were doubt- ing, and to convince those who were opposed, are the only sure tests : but these persons are seldom very loud in their applause, or very forward in bearing their testimony. 176 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IH. Of Ambiguous middle, § 8. That case in which the middle is undistri- buted belongs of course to the preceding head, the fault being perfectly manifest from the mere form of the expression : in that case the extremes are compared with two parts of the same term ; but in the Fallacy which has been called semi-logical, (which we are now to speak of) the extremes are compared with two different terms, the middle being used in two different senses in the two Premises.* And here it may be remarked, that when the argument is brought into the form of a regular Syllogism, the contrast between these two senses will usually appear very striking, from the two Premises being placed together ; and hence the scorn with which many have treated the very mention of the Fallacy of Equivocation, deriving their only notion of it from the exposure of it in Logical treatises ; whereas, in practice it is common for the two Premises to be placed very far apart, and dis- cussed in different parts of the discourse ; by which means the inattentive hearer overlooks any ambiguity that may exist in the middle * For some instances of important ambiguities, see Appendix. § 8.] OF FALLACIES. 1 77 term. Hence the advantage of Logical ha- bits^ to fix our attention strongly and steadily on the important terms of an argument. One case, which may be regarded as com- paronymc , words. mg under the head of Ambiguous middle, is, what is called, '' Fallacia Figurce Dictionis" the Fallacy built on the grammatical structure of language, from men's usually taking for \ granted that paronymous words (i, e, those belonging to each other, as the substantive, 1 adjective, verb, S^c, of the same root) have a precisely correspondent meaning ; which is by no means universally the case. Such a fallacy could not indeed be even exhibited in strict Logical form, which would preclude even the attempt at it, since it has two middle terms in sound as well as sense : but nothing is more common in practice than to vary continually the terms employed, with a view to grammati- cal convenience ; nor is there anything unfair in such a practice, as long as the meaning is preserved unaltered : e, g, '' murder should be punished with death ; this man is a murderer ; therefore he deserves to die," S^c. S^c, Here we proceed on the assumption (in this case just) that to commit murder and to be a mur- derer, — to deserve death and to be one who ought to die, are, respectively, equivalent expressions : and it would frequently prove a heavy inconvenience to be debarred this kind N V ^ 178 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL of liberty ; but the abuse of it gives rise to the Fallacy in question : e, g. " projectors nice unfit to be trusted; this man has formed a project, therefore he is unfit to be trusted :* " here the Sophist proceeds on the hypothesis that he who forms a project must be a projec- tor : whereas the bad sense that commonly attaches to the latter word, is not at all im- plied in the former. This Fallacy may often be considered as lying not in the middle, but in one of the terms of the conclusion ; so that the conclu- sion drawn shall not be, in reality, at all warranted by the Premises, though it will appear to be so, by means of the grammatical affinity of the words : e, g, ^' to be acquainted with the guilty is a presumption of guilt ; this man is so acquainted ; therefore we may presume that he is guilty:" this argument proceeds on the supposition of an exact cor- respondence between '^presume" and "pre- sumption" which, however, does not really exist ; for " presumption " is commonly used to express a kind of slight suspicion ; whereas "to presume" amounts to absolute belief. The above remark will apply to some other cases of ambiguity of term ; viz. the conclu- sion will often contain a term, which (though not, as here, different in expression from the * Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations : Usury. §8.] OF FALLACIES. 179 corresponding one in the Premiss, yet) is liable to be understood in a sense different from what it bears to the Premiss ; though, of course, such a Fallacy is less common, be- cause less likely to deceive, in those cases than in this; where the term used in the conclu- sion, though professing to correspond with one in the Premiss, is not the very same in expression, and therefore is more certain to convey a different sense ; which is what the Sophist wishes. There are innumerable instances of a non- correspondence in paronymous words, similar to that above instanced ; as between art and artful, design and designing, faith and faith- ful, S^c. ; and the more slight the variation of meaning, the more likely is the Fallacy to be successful ; for when the words have become so widely removed in sense as "pity" and " pitiful," every one would perceive such a Fallacy, nor could it be employed but in jest. This Fallacy cannot in practice be refuted, by stating merely the impossibility of reducing such an argument to the strict Logical form ; (unless indeed you are addressing regular Logicians) you must find some way of point- ing out the non-correspondence of the terms in question ; e, g. with respect to the example above, it might be remarked, that we speak of strong ox faint " presumption," but we use N 2 180 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL no such expression in conjunction with the verb " presume," because the word itself im- plies strength. No fallacy is more common in controversy than the present, since in this way the Sophist will often be able to misinterpret the proposi- tions which his opponent admits or maintains, and so employ them against him. Thus in the examples just given, it is natural to conceive one of the Sophist's Premises to have been borrowed from his opponent* Etymology. Thc prcscut Fallacy is nearly allied to, or rather perhaps may be regarded as a branch of that founded on etymology; viz. when a Term is used at one time, in its customary, and at another, in its etymological sense. Perhaps no example of this can be found that is more extensively and mischievously employed than in the case of the word repre- sentative : assuming that its right meaning must correspond exactly with the strict and original sense of the verb, "represent," the Sophist persuades the multitude, that a mem- ber of the House of Commons is bound to be guided in all points by the opinion of his constituents : and, in short, to be merely their * Perhaps a dictionary of such paronymous words as do not regularly correspond in meaning, would be nearly as useful as one of synonyms ; i. e, properly speaking, of pseudo' synonyms. §9.] OF FALLACIES. 181 spokesman: whereas law and custom, which in this case may be considered as fixing the meaning of the Term, require no such thing, but enjoin the representative to act according to the best of his own judgment, and on his own responsibility.* §9. It is to be observed, that to the head ofpaiucyof loterroga- Ambiguous middle should be referred what^ions. is called '' Fallacia plurium Interrogatmium" which may be named, simply, "the Fallacy of Interrogation ;" viz, the Fallacy of asking several questions which appear to be but one ; so that whatever one answer is given, being of course applicable to one only of the implied questions, may be interpreted as applied to the other; the refutation is, of course, to reply separately to each question, L e, to detect the ambiguity. I have said, several " questions which ap- * Home Tooke has furnished a whole magazine of such weapons for any Sophist who may need them ; and has furnished some specimens of the employment of them. He contends, that it is idle to speak of eternal or im- mutable " Truth,''* because the word is derived from to ** trow," i. e. believe. He might on as good grounds have censured the absurdity of speaking of sending a letter by the *'post" because a post, in its primary sense, is a pillar ; or have insisted that " Sycophant" can never mean anything but " Fig-shower." 182 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book III. pear to he but one;' for else there is no Fal- lacy; such an example, therefore, as '' estne homo animal et lapis?'' which Aldrich gives, is foreign to the matter in hand; for there is nothing unfair in asking two distinct ques- tions (any more than in asserting two dis- tinct propositions) distinctly and avowedly. This Fallacy may be referred, as has been said, to the head of Ambiguous middle. In all Reasoning it is very common to state one of the Premises in form of a question, and when that is admitted, or supposed to be admitted, then to fill up the rest; if then one of the Terms of that question be ambiguous, which- ever sense the opponent replies to, the Sophist assumes the other sense of the Term in the remaining Premiss. It is therefore very com- mon to state an equivocal argument, in form of a question so worded, that there shall be little doubt which reply will be given ; but if there be such doubt, the Sophist must have two Fallacies of equivocation ready ; e, g, the question ^'whether anything vicious is expe- dient," discussed in Cic. Off. Book III. (where, by the bye, he seems not a little perplexed with it himself) is of the character in ques- tion, from the ambiguity of the word '^ expe- dient," which means sometimes, '^ conducive to temporal prosperity," sometimes '^ con- ducive to the greatest good : " whichever § 10.] OF FALLACIES. 183 answer therefore was given, the Sophist might have a Fallacy of equivocation founded on this term ; viz, if the answer be in the negative, his argument. Logically developed, will stand thus, — '^ what is vicious is not expedient ; whatever conduces to the acquisition of wealth and aggrandizement is expedient ; therefore it cannot be vicious : " if in the affirmative, then thus, — "whatever is expedient is desirable; something vicious is expedient, therefore de- sirable." This kind of Fallacy is frequently employed Distribution •^ ^ J r J andnon-dis- in such a manner, that the uncertainty shall '"""tion. be, not about the meaning, but the extent of a Term, i, e, whether it is distributed or not : e, g, "did A B in this case act from such and such a motive ?" which may imply either, "was it his sole motive?" or "wasito/ze of his motives?" in the former case the term " that-which-actuated-A B " is distributed ; in the latter, not : now if he acted from a mixture of motives, whichever answer you give, may be misrepresented, and thus disproved. §10. In some cases of ambiguous middle, the intrinsic and Term in question may be considered as hav- equivocations. ing in itself, from its own equivocal nature, two significations ; (which apparently consti- tutes the " Fallacia equivocationis " of Logical 1 84 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book III. writers ;) others again have a middle Term which is ambiguous from the context, i. e, from what is understood in conjunction with it. This division will be found useful, though it is impossible to draw the line accurately in it. The elliptical character of ordinary discourse causes many Terms to become practically ambiguous, which yet are not themselves em- ployed in different senses, but with different applications, which are understood. Thus, " The Faith " would be used by a Christian writer to denote the Christian Faith, and by a Mussulman, the Mahometan ; yet the word Faith, has not in these cases, of itself, two diiferent significations. So cKXeKTol, '' elect," or " chosen," is sometimes applied to such as are " chosen," to certain privileges and advan- tages ; (as the Israelites were, though '' they were overthrown in the wilderness " for their disobedience ; and as all Christians are fre- quently called in the New Testament) some- times again to those who are '' chosen," as fit to receive a Jinal reward, having made a right use of those advantages ; as when our Lord says, *' many are called, but few chosen." * * What Logicians have mentioned under the title of " Fallacia amphiboliae " is referable to this last class ; though in real practice it is not very likely to occur. An amphibolous sentence is one that is capable of two mean- ings, not from the double sense of any of the words, but § 10.] OF FALLACIES. 185 There are various ways in which words Accidental •^ equivocation. come to have two meanings : 1 st. by accident ; (L e. when there is no perceptible connection between the two meanings) as " light " sig- nifies both the contrary to ^' heavy," and the :=, contrary to '' dark." Thus, such proper names as John or Thomas, Sfc. which happen to belong to several different persons, are ambiguous, because they have a different sig- nification in each case where they are applied. Words which fall under this first head are what are the most' strictly called equivocal. 2dly. There are several terms in the use of First and second inten- which it IS necessary to notice the distinction ^'<>°- from its admitting of a double construction : as in the instance Aldrich gives, which is untranslatable ; " quod tangitur a Socrate, illud sentit ;" where " illud " may be taken either as the nominative or accusative. So also the celebrated response of the oracle ; " Aio te, ^acida, Ro- manos vincere posse :" which closely resembles (as Shak- speare remarks) the witch-prophecy, " The Duke yet lives that Henry shall depose." A similar effect is produced by what the French call " construction louche," a squint- ing construction ; i. e. where some word or words may be referred either to the former or latter clause of the sen- tence ; of which an instance occurs in the rubric prefixed to the service of the 30th January. " If this day shall happen to be Sunday [this form of prayer shall be used] and the fast kept the next day following :" the clause in brackets may belong either to the former or the latter part of the sentence. In the Nicene Creed, the words " by whom all things were made," are grammatically re- ferable either to the Father or the Son. ] 86 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL between first and second intention,^ The ^' first-intention " of a Term, (according to the usual acceptation of this phrase) is a certain vague and general signification of it, as opposed to one more 'precise and limited , which it bears in some particular art, science, or system, and which is called its " second-inten- tion." Thus, among farmers, in some parts, the word ^' beast " is applied particularly and especially to the ox kind ; and '' bird," in the language of many sportsmen, is in like manner appropriated to the partridge : the common and general acceptation (which every one is well acquainted with) of each of those two words, is the First-intention of each ; the other, its Second-intention. * I am aware that there exists another opinion as to the meaning of the phrase " second-intention ;" and that Aldrich is understood by some persons to mean (as indeed his expression may very well be understood to imply) that every jpredicahle must necessarily be employed in the Second-intention. I do not undertake to combat the doctrine alluded to, because I must confess that, after the most patient attention devoted to the explanations given of it, I have never been able to comprehend what it is that is meant by it. It is one, however, which, whether sound or unsound, appears not to be connected with any Logical processes, and therefore may be safely passed by on the present occasion. For some remarks on the Second-intention of the word " Species," when applied to organized beings (viz. as de- noting those plants or animals, which it is conceived may have descended from a common stock), see the subjoined Dissertation, Book IV. Chap. v. § 1. §10.] OF FALLACIES. 187 It is evident that a Term may have several Second-intentions, according to the several systems into which it is introduced, and of v^hich it is one of the technical Terms : thus *^ line " signifies, in the Art-military, a certain form of drawing up ships or troops : in Geo- graphy, a certain division of the earth; to the fisherman, a string to catch fish," ^c, Sfc, ; all which are so many distinct Second-inten- tions, in each of which there is a certain signification "of extension in length" which constitutes the First-intention, and which cor- responds pretty nearly with the employment of the Term in Mathematics.* It will sometimes happen, that a Term shall be employed always in some one or other of its second intentions ; and never, strictly in the first, though that first intention is a part of its signification in each case. It is evident, that the utmost care is requisite to avoid con- founding together, either the first and second intentions, or the different second intentions with each other. 3rdly. When two or more things are con- Resemblance and analogy. nected by resemblance or analogy, they will * In a few instances the Second-intention, or philoso- phical employment of a Term, is more extensive than the First-intention, or popular use : thus " affection " is limited in popular use to " love;" '* charity," to "alms- giving ;" *' flower," to those which have conspicuous petals; and fruit, to such as are eatable. 188 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL frequently have the same name. Thus a '' Made of grass," and the contrivance in building called a '' dove-tail" are so called from their resemblance to the blade '^ of a sword, and the tail of a real dove. But two things may be connected by analogy, though they have in themselves no resemblance: for analogy is the resemblance of ratios (or rela- tions:) thus, as a sweet taste gratifies the palate, so does a sweet sound gratify the ear ; and hence the same word, '' sweet;' is appHed to both, though no flavour can resemble a sound in itself: so, the leg of a table does not resemble that of an animal ; nor the foot of a mountain that of an animal; but the leg answers the same purpose to the table, as the leg of an animal to that animal ; the foot of a mountain has the same situation relatively to the mountain, as the foot of an animal to the animal; this analogy therefore may be ex- pressed like a mathematical analogy (or pro- portion) " leg : animal :: supporting stick : table." In all these cases (of this 3rd head) one of the meanings of the word is called by Logi- cians proper y i, e, original or primary ; the * Unless, indeed, the primary application of the Term be to the leaf of grass, and the secondary to cutting instruments, which is perhaps more probable ; but the question is unimportant in the present case. § 10.] OF FALLACIES. 189 other improper, secondary, or transferred : thus, sweet is originally and properly applied to tastes ; secondarily and improperly (i, e. by analogy) to sounds : thus also, dove-tail is applied secondarily (though not by analogy, but by direct resemblance) to the contrivance in building so called. When the secondary meaning of a word is founded on some fan- ciful analogy, and especially when it is intro- duced for ornament sake, we call this a metaphor ; as when we speak of " a ship's ploughing the deep." The turning up of the surface being essential indeed to the plough, but accidental only to the ship ; but if the analogy be a more important and essential one, and especially if we have no other word to express our meaning but this transferred one, we then call it merely an analogous word (though the metaphor is analogous also) e,g, one would hardly call it metaphorical ox figurative language to speak of the leg of a table, or mouth of a river,* 4thly. Several things may be called by the connection same name (though they have no connection ^^'"'^' of resemblance or analogy) from being con- h nected hy vicinity of time or place; under which head will come the connection of cause and effect, or of part and whole, S^c. Thus a ♦ See Dr. Copleston's account of Analogy in the notes to his " Four Discourses." 190 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL door signifies both an opening in the wall (more strictly called the door-way) and a board which closes it ; which are things nei- ther similar nor analogous. When I say, " the rose smells sweet ;" and " I smell the rose ;" the word '' smell " has two meanings : in the latter sentence, I am speaking of a certain sensation in my own mind ; in the former of a certain quality in the flower, which produces that sensation, but which of course cannot in the least resemble it; and here the word smell is applied with equal propriety to both.* Thus we speak of Homer, for '' the works of Homer ;" and this is a secondary or transferred meaning: and so it is when we say, '^ a good shot," for a good marksman ; but the word ^^ shot " has two other meanings, which are both equally proper ; viz, the thing put into a gun in order to be discharged from it, and the act of dis- charging it. Thus, " learning " signifies either the act of acquiring knowledge, or the knowledge itself; e.g, "he neglects his learning;" "Johnson was a man of learning." " Possession" is am- biguous in the same manner, and a multitude of others. * On this ambiguity have been founded the striking parodoxes of those who have maintained that there is no heat in fire, no cold in ice, ^c. The sensations of heat, cold, <^c. can of course only belong to a Sentient Being. §10.] OF FALLACIES. 191 Much confusion often arises from ambiguity of this kind, when unperceived ; nor is there any point in which the copiousness and con- sequent precision of the Greek language, is more to be admired than in its distinct terms for expressing an act, and the result of that act ; e, g, irpa^tsy " the doing of anything ; " irpayfia, the " thing done ; " so, hoans and BcopoVj \7]^fn9 and Xrjfifiaj 8^c. It will very often happen, that two of the meanings of a word will have no connection with one another, but will each have some connection with a third. Thus " martyr " originally signified a witness; thence it was applied to those who suffered in bearing testi- mony to Christianity ; and thence again it is often applied to " sufferers " in general : the first and third significations are not the least connected. Thus '' post " signifies originally a pillar, (postum, from pono) then a distance marked out by posts ; and then the carriages, messengers, S^c, that travelled over this dis- tance. It would puzzle any one, proceeding on mere conjecture, to make out how the word " premises " should have come to signify a building. Ambiguities of this kind belong practically to the first head : there being no perceived connection between the different senses. The remedy for ambiguity is a Defirjtion of 192 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL the Term which is suspected of being used in two senses ; viz, a Nominal, not necessarily a Real Definition : as was remarked in Book II. Chap. V. But here it may be proper to remark, that for the avoiding of Fallacy or of verbal con- troversy, it is only requisite that the term should be employed uniformly in the same sense as far as the existing question is con- cerned; thus, two persons might, in discussing the question, whether Caesar was a great man, have some such difference in their ac- ceptation of the epithet *' great," as would be non-essential to that question ; e, g, one of them might understand by it nothing more than eminent intellectual and moral qualities ; while the other might conceive it to imply the performance of splendid actions: this abstract difference of meaning would not produce any disagreement in the existing question, because both those circumstances are united in the case of Caesar ; but if one (and not the other) of the parties understood the epithet '^ great " to imply pure patriotism, generosity of cha- racter, ^c, then there zvould be a disagree- ment as to the application of the Term, even between those who might think ahke of Caesar's character. Definition, the specific for ambiguity, is to be employed, and demanded with a view to this principle ; it is sufficient § 11] OF FALLACIES. 193 on each occasion to define a Term as far as .-/t - regards the question in hand, ^- -^^"^ §11. Of those cases where the ambiguity arises ' from the context, there are several species ; some of which Logicians have enumerated, but have neglected to refer them, in the first place, to one common class (vk. the one under which they are here placed ;) and have even arranged some under the head of Fal-' lacies " in dictione" and others under that of '' extra dictionemr We may consider, as the first of these Fallacy of Division and species, the Fallacy of " Division" and that of ^''•"p*'"*»«"- '' Composition," taken together, since in each of these the middle Term is used in one Premiss collectively, in the other, distrihu- tivehj : if the former of these is the major Premiss, and the latter, the minor, this is called the '' Fallacy of Division ;'^ the Term which is first taken collectively being after- wards divided ; and vice versa. The ordinary examples are such as these ; " All the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles : A B C is an angle of a triangle ; therefore A B C is equal to two right angles." '' Five is one number ; three and two are five ; therefore three and two are one number ;" or, " three and two are two numbers, five is 194 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL three and two, therefore five is two numbers :" it is manifest that the middle Term, three and two (in this last example) is ambiguous, signi- fying, in the major Premiss, " taken dis- tinctly," in the minor, '' taken together :" and so of the rest. To this head may be referred the Fallacy by which men have sometimes been led to admit, or pretend to admit, the doctrine of Necessity ; e. g. " he who necessarily goes or stays (L e, in reality, ' who necessarily/ goes, or who necessarily stays') is not a free agent ; you must necessarily go or stay (i, e, ' you must necessarily take the alternative') there- fore you are not a free agent." Such also is the Fallacy which probably operates on most adventurers in lotteries ; e, g. '^ the gaining of a high prize is no uncommon occurrence ; and what is no uncommon occurrence may rea- sonably be expected ; therefore the gaining of a high prize may reasonably be expected;" the Conclusion, when applied to the indi- vidual (as in practice it is), must be under- stood in the sense of ^^ reasonably expected by a certain individual'/' therefore for the major Premiss to be true, the middle Term must be understood to mean, '' no uncom- mon occurrence to some one particular per- son ;" whereas for the minor (which has been placed first) to be true, you must understand § 11.] .OF FALLACIES. 195 it of ^' no uncommon occm'rence to some one or other f and thus you will have the Fallacy of Composition. There is no Fallacy more common, or more likely to deceive, than the one now before us : the form in which it is most usually employed, is, to establish some truth, separately, con- cerning each single member of a certain class, and thence to infer the same of the whole col- lectively : thus some infidels have laboured to prove concerning some one of our Lord's miracles, that it might have been the result of an accidental conjuncture of natural circum- stances : next, they endeavour to prove the same concerning another ; and so on ; and thence infer that all of them might have been so. They might argue in like manner, that because it is not very improbable one may throw sixes in any one out of a hundred throws, therefore it is no more improbable that one may throw sixes a hundred times running. This Fallacy may often be considered as turning on the ambiguity of the word '' all ;" which may easily be dispelled by substituting for it the word '' each" or " every/' where that is its signification ; e, g, '' all these trees make a thick shade," is ambiguous, meaning, either, '' every one of them," or '^ all together." This is a Fallacy with which men are ex- tremely apt to deceive themselves : for when a o 2 196 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL multitude of particulars are presented to the mind, many are too weak or too indolent to take a comprehensive view of them ; but con- fine their attention to each single point, by turns ; and then decide, infer, and act, accord- ingly : e, g, the imprudent spendthrift, finding that he is able to afford this, or that, or the other expense, forgets that all of them together will ruin him. To the same head may be reduced that fallacious reasoning by which men vindicate themselves to their own conscience and to others, for the neglect of those undefined du- ties, which though indispensable, and there- fore not left to our choice whether we will practise them or not, are left to our discre- tion as to the mode, and the particular occasions, of practising them ; e. g, " I am not bound to contribute to this charity in particular ; nor to that ; nor to the other :" the practical conclusion which they draw, is, that all charity may be dispensed with. As men are apt to forget that any two cir- cumstances (not naturally connected) are more rarely to be met with combined than separate, though they be not at all incom- patible ; so also they are apt to imagine, from finding that they are rarely combined, that there is an incompatibility ; e. g. if the chances are ten to one against a man's §12.] OF FALLACIES. 197 possessing strong reasoning powers, and ten to one against exquisite taste, the chances against the combination of the two (suppos- ing them neither connected or opposed) will be a hundred to one. Many, therefore, from finding them so rarely united, will infer that they are in some measure incompatible ; which Fallacy may easily be exposed in the form of Undistributed middle : '* qualities un- friendly to each other are rarely combined ; excellence in the reasoning powers, and in taste, are rarely combined ; therefore they are qualities unfriendly to each other." §12. The other kind of ambiguity arising from Faiiaoia the context, and which is the last case of Ambiguous middle that I shall notice, is the '' fallacia accidentis,'' together with its con- verse, '' fallacia a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter ;" in each of which the mid- dle Term is used, in one Premiss to signify something considered simply, in itself, and as to its essence ; and in the other Premiss, so as to imply that its Accidents are taken into account with it : as in the well-known ex- ample, " what is bought in the market is eaten; raw meat is bought in the market; therefore raw meat is eaten." Here the middle has understood in conjunction with ac- cidentis. 198 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL it, in the major Premiss, " as to its substance merely:" in the minor, '' as to its condition and circumstances,'' To this head, perhaps, as well as to any, may be referred the Fallacies which are fre- quently founded on the occasional, partial, and temporary variations in the acceptation of some Term, arising from circumstances of person, time, and place, which will occasion something to be understood in conjunction with it beyond its strict literal signification ; e, g, the phrase '' Protestant -ascendancy," having become a kind of watch-word or ga- thering-cry of a party, the expression of good wishes for it would commonly imply an ad- herence to certain measures not literally ex- pressed by the words ; to assume therefore that one is unfriendly to '^ Protestant-ascend- ancy " in the literal sense, because he has declared himself unfriendly to it when imply- ing and connected with such and such other sentiments, is a gross Fallacy ; and such an one as perhaps the authors of the above would much object to, if it were assumed of thefn that they were adverse to " the cause of liberty throughout the world," and to " a fair representation of the people," from their objecting to join with the members of a factious party in the expression of such sen- timents. § 13.] OF FALLACIES. 199 Such Fallacies may fairly be referred to the present head. §13. Of the Non-logical (or material) Fallacies : and first, of ^' begging the question ;" Petitio PrincipiL The indistinct and unphilosophical account Begging u. i- *■ question. which has been given by Logical writers of the Fallacy of " non causa" and that of *' pe- titio principii," makes it very difficult to ascertain wherein they conceived them to differ, and what, according to them, is the nature of each ; without therefore professing to conform exactly to their meaning, and with a view to distinctness only, which is the main point, let us confine the name ''petitio principii " to those cases in which the Premiss either appears manifestly to be the same as the Conclusion, or is actually proved from the Conclusion, or is such as would naturally and properly so be proved ; (as if one should attempt to prove the being of a God from the authority of Holy- writ ;) and to the other class be referred all other cases, in which the Premiss (whether the expressed or the suppressed one) is either proved false, or has no sufficient claim to be received as true. Let it l^owever be observed, that in such 200 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL cases (apparently) as this, we must not too hastily pronounce the argument fallacious ; for it may be perfectly fair at the commence- ment of an argument to assume a Premiss that is not more evident than the Conclusion, or is even ever so paradoxical, provided you pro- ceed to prove fairly that Premiss : and in like manner it is both usual and fair to begin by deducing your Conclusion from a Premiss exactly equivalent to it ; which is merely throwing the proposition in question into the form in which it will be most conveniently proved. Arguing in a Circle, however, must necessarily be unfair; though it frequently is practised undesignedly ; e. g. some Mechani- cians attempt to prove, (what they ought to lay down as a probable but doubtful hypo- thesis,) that every particle of matter gravitates equally ; " why ?" because those bodies which contain more particles ever gravitate more strongly, L e, are heavier : " but (it may be urged) those which are heaviest are not always more bulky ; " *^ no, but still they contain more particles, though more closely con- densed ; " " how do you know that ? " " because they are heavier ; " *' how does that prove it ?" '' because all particles of matter gravitating equally, that mass which is specifically the heavier must needs have the more of them in the same space." § 13.J OF FALLACIES. 201 Obliquity and disguise being of course most obiiquity of . . . ... expression. important to the success of the petitio prmcipii as well as of other Fallacies, the Sophist will in general either have recourse to the circle, or else not venture to state distinctly his as- sumption of the point in question, but will rather assert some other proposition which i7nplies it ;* thus keeping out of sight (as a dexterous thief does stolen goods) the point in question, at the very moment when he is taking it for granted. Hence the fi'equent union of this Fallacy with '' ignoratio elenchi ;" [vide § 15.] The Enghsh language is per- haps the more suitable for the Fallacy of petitio prmcipii, from its being formed from two distinct languages, and thus abounding in synonymous expressions which have no re- semblance in sound, and no connection in etymology ; so that a Sophist may bring forward a proposition expressed in words of Saxon origin, and give as a reason for it, the very same proposition stated in words of Nor- man origin ; e. g. '' to allow every man an unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the State ; * Gibbon affords the most remarkable instances of this kind of style. That which he really means to speak of, is hardly ever made the subject of his proposition. His way of writing reminds one of those persons who never dare look you full in the face. '/ 202 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL for it is highly conducive to the interests of the Community, that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited, of ex- pressing his sentiments." § 14. Undue as- The uext head is, the falsity, or, at least, stitnption. '' undue assumption, of a Premiss, when it is not equivalent to, or dependent on, the Con- clusion ; v^hich, as has been before said, seems to correspond nearly with the meaning of Logicians, when they speak of ^' non causa pro causal This name indeed would seem to imply a much narrower class : there being one species of arguments which are from cause to effect ; in which, of course, two things are necessary ; 1 st, the sufficiency of the cause ; 2d, its establishment; these are the two Premises ; if therefore the former be unduly assumed, we are arguing from that which is not a sufficient cause as if it were so : e, g. as if one should contend from such a man's having been unjust or cruel, that he will certainly be visited with some heavy temporal judgment, and come to an untimely end. In this instance the Sophist, from having as- sumed, in the Premiss, the (granted) existence of a pretended cause, infers in the conclusion the existence of the pretended effect, which we have supposed to be the Question. Or § 14.] OF FALLACIES. 203 vice versa, the pretended effect may be em- ployed to establish the cause ; e, g. inferring sinfulness from temporal calamity. But when both the pretended cause and effect are granted, L e, granted to exist, then the So- phist will infer something from their pre- tended connection ; i, e. he will assume as a Premiss, that '' of these two admitted facts, the one is the cause of the other:" as the opponents of the Reformation assumed that it was the cause of the troubles which took place at that period, and thence inferred that it was an evil.* In like manner, nothing is more common than to hear a person state * In many cases, a Sign (see Rhet. Part I.) from which one might fairly infer a certain phenomenon, is mistaken for the Cause of it: as if one should suppose the falling of the mercury to he a cause of rain, of which it certainly is an indication. Whereas the fact will often be the very reverse ; e. ^. a great deal of money in a country is a pretty sure proof of its wealth, and thence has been often regarded as the cause of it ; whereas in truth it is an effect. The same, with a numerous and increasing popu- lation. So also exposure to want and hardship in youth, has been regarded as a cause of the hardy constitution of those men and brutes which have been brought up in barren countries of ungenial climate. Yet the most ex- perienced cattle-breeders know that animals are, cceteris paribuSy the more hardy for having been well fed and sheltered in youth ; but early hardships, by destroying all the tender, ensure the hardiness of the survivors. So, loading a gun-barrel to the muzzle, and firing it, does not give it strength ; but proves, if it escape, that it was strong. 204 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC [Book III. confidently, as from his own experience, that such and such a patient zvas cured by this or that medicine : whereas all that he absolutely knows, is that he took the medicine, and that he recovered. Such an argument as either of these might strictly be called " non causa pro causa ;" but it is not probable that the Logical writers intended any such limitation (which indeed would be wholly unnecessary and im- pertinent,) but rather that they were con- founding together cause and reason; the sequence of Conclusion from Premises being perpetually mistaken for that of effect from physical cause, ^ It may be better, therefore, to drop the name which tends to perpetuate this confusion, and simply to state (when such is the case) that the Premiss is unduly assumed ; i. e. without being either self-evi- dent, or satisfactorily proved. The contrivances by which men may deceive themselves or others, in assuming Premises unduly, so that that undue assumption shall not he perceived, (for it is in this the Fallacy consists) are of course infinite. Sometimes (as was before observed) the doubtful Premiss is suppressed, as if it were too evident to need being proved, or even stated, and as if the whole question turned on the estabhshment of the other Premiss. Thus Home Tooke proves, * See Appendix, No. I. article Reason, § 14.] OF FALLACIES. 205 by an immense induction, that all particles were originally nouns or verbs ; and thence concludes, that in reality they are so still, and that the ordinary division of the parts of speech is absurd ; keeping out of sight, as self-evident, the other Premiss, which is ab- solutely false; viz, that the meaning and force of a word, now, and for ever, must be that which it, or its root, originally bore. Sometimes men are shamed into admitting an unfounded assertion, by being confidently told, that it is so evident, that it would argue great weakness to doubt it. In general, how- ever, the more skilful Sophist will avoid a direct assertion of what he means unduly to assume ; because that might direct the reader's attention to the consideration of the question whether it be t7'ue or not; since that which is indisputable does not so often need to be asserted : it succeeds better, therefore, to allude to the proposition, as something curious and remarkable; just as the Royal Society were imposed on by being asked to account for the fact that a vessel of water received no addition to its weight by a live fish put into it; while they were seeking for the cause, they forgot to ascertain i\iefact, and thus admitted with- out suspicion a mere fiction. Thus an eminent Scotch writer, instead of asserting that "the advocates of Logic have been worsted and relerences. 206 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL driven from the field in every controversy," (an assertion which, if made, would have been the more readily ascertained to be perfectly groundless,) merely observes, that " it is a cir- cumstance not a little 7'emarkable'* Fallacy of Oue of the mauy contrivances employed for this purpose, is what may be called the ^^ Fallacy of references;" which is particularly common in popular theological works. It is of course a circumstance which adds great weight to any assertion, that it shall seem to be supported by many passages of Scripture : now when a writer can find few or none of these, that distinctly and decidedly favour his opinion, he may at least find many which may be conceived capable of being so understood, or which, in some way or other, remotely relate to the subject ; but if these texts were inserted at length, it would be at once per- ceived how little they bear on the question ; the usual artifice therefore is, to give merely references to them ; trusting that nineteen out of twenty readers will never take the trouble of turning to the passages, but, taking for granted that they afford, each, some degree of confirmation to what is maintained, will be overawed by seeing every assertion sup- ported, as they suppose, by five or six Scrip- ture-texts. Frequently the Fallacy of ignoratio elenchi § 14.] OF FALLACIES. 207 is called in to the aid of this ; i. e. the Premiss combination of this Pal- is assumed on the ground of another proposi- foifowiig.^''* tion, somewhat like it, having been proved. Thus, in arguing by example, Sf'c, the pa- rallelism of two cases is often assumed from their being in some respects alike, though per- haps they differ in the very point which is essential to the argument. E. G, From the circumstance that some men of humble sta- tion, who have been well educated, are apt to think themselves above low drudgery, it is argued, that universal education of the lower orders would beget general idleness : this argument rests, of course, on the assump- tion of parallelism in the two cases, viz, the past, and the future; whereas there is a cir- cumstance that is absolutely essential, in which they differ ; for when education is universal it must cease to be a distinction ; which is pro- bably the very circumstance that renders men too proud for their work. This very same Fallacy is often resorted to on the opposite side : an attempt is made to invalidate some argument from Example, by pointing out a difference between the two cases : though they agree in every thing that is essential to the question. It should be added that we may often be calculation of probabilities. deceived, not only by admitting a premiss which is absolutely unsupported, but also, by 208 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL attributing to one which really is probable, a greater degree of probability than rightly belongs to it. And this effect will often be produced by our omitting to calculate the probability in each successive step of a long chain of argument. Each link may have an excess of chances in its favour, and yet the ultimate conclusion may have a great pre- ponderance against it ; e, g. " All Y is (pro- bably) X : all Z is (probably) Y : therefore Z is (probably) X : " now suppose the truth of the major premiss to be more probable than not ; in other words, that the chances for it are more than - ; say ^ ; and for the truth of the minor, let the chances be greater still; say j: then by multiplying together the nu- merators, and also the denominators of these two fractions, ^ x - we obtain j^, as indicating the degree of probability of the conclusion ; which is less than j ; «'. e, the conclusion is less likely to be true than not. E. G, " The reports this author heard are (probably) true ; this (something which he records) is a report which (probably) he heard; therefore it is true:" suppose, first. The majority of the re- ports he heard, as 4 out of 7, (or 12 of 21,) to be true ; and, next. That he generally, as twice in three times, (or 8 in 12,) reports faithfully what he heard; it follows that of 21 of his reports, only 8 are true. Of course. § 15.J OF FALLACIES. 209 the results are proportionably striking when there is a long series of arguments of this description. And yet weak and thoughtless reasoners are often influenced by hearing a great deal urged, — a great number of proba- bilities brought forward, — in support of some conclusion ; i, e, a long chain, of which each successive link is weaker than the foregoing ; instead of (what they mistake it for) a cumu- lation of arguments, each, separately proving the probability of the conclusion. Lastly, it may be here remarked, conform- ably with what has been formerly said, that it will often be left to your choice whether to refer this or that fallacious argument to the present head, or that of Ambiguous middle ; ^^ if the middle term is here used in this sense, there is an ambiguity ; if in that sense, the proposition is false'' § 15. ' The last kind of Fallacy to be discussed irrelevant /. X 1 r^ 1 ' 1 Conclusion, IS that of Irrelevant Conclusion, commonly called ignoratio elenchi. Various kinds of propositions are, according to the occasion, substituted for the one of which proof is re- quired. Sometimes the Particular for the Universal ; sometimes a proposition with different Terms : and various are the contrivances employed to p 210 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL effect and to conceal this substitution, and to make the Conclusion which the Sophist has drawn, answer, practically, the same purpose as the one he ought to have estabhshed. I say, *' practically the same purpose," because it will very often happen that some emotion will be excited — some sentiment impressed on the mind — (by a dexterous employment of this Fallacy) such as shall bring men into the dispo* sition requisite for your purpose, though they may not have assented to, or even stated dis- tinctly in their own minds, the proposition which it was your business to establish. Thus if a Sophist has to defend one who has been guilty of some serious offence, which he wishes to ex- tenuate, though he is unable distinctly to prove that it is not such, yet if he can succeed in making the audience laugh at some casual mat- ter, he has gained practically the same point. So also if any one has pointed out the extenu- ating circumstances in some particular case of offence, so as to show that it differs widely from the generality of the same class, the Sophist, if he find himself unable to disprove these circumstances, may do away the force of them, by simply referring the action to that very class, which no one can deny that it belongs to, and the very name of which will excite a feeling of disgust sufficient to coun- teract the extenuation; e,g, let it be a case § 15.J OF FALLACIES. 211 of peculation, and that many mitigating cir- cumstances have been brought forward which cannot be denied ; the sophistical opponent will reply, '' well, but after all, the man is a rogue, and there is an end of it;" now in reality this was (by hypothesis) never the question ; and the mere assertion of what was never denied, ought not, in fairness, to be regarded as decisive ; but practically, the odi- ousness of the word, arising in great measure from the association of those very circumstances which belong to most of the class, but which we have supposed to be absent in this parti- cular instance, excites precisely that feeling of disgust, which in effect destroys the force of the defence. In like manner we may refer to this head, all cases of improper appeals to the passions, and every thing else which is mentioned by Aristotle as extraneous to the matter in hand (efw tov irpdyfiaros,) In all these cases, as has been before ob- served, if the fallacy we are now treating of be employed for the apparent establishment, not of the ultimate Conclusion, but (as it very commonly happens) of a Premiss, (i, e, if the Premiss required be assumed on the ground that some proposition resembhng it has been proved) then there will be a combination of this Fallacy with the last mentioned. A good instance of the employment and p2 tation. 212 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Bcoit IlL exposure of this Fallacy occurs in Thucydides, in the speeches of Cleon and Diodotus concern- ing the Mitylenaeans : the former (over and above his appeal to the angry passions of his audience) urges the justice of putting the revolters to death ; which, as the latter remarked, was nothing to the purpose, since the Athenians were not silting in judgment, but in deliberation, of which the proper end is expediency. This fallacy It is cvideut, that is^noratio elenclii may be used hi refu- ^ O J ^ employed as well for the apparent refutation of your opponent's proposition, as for the ap- parent establishment of your own ; for it is substantially the same thing, to prove what was not denied, or to disprove what was not asserted : the latter practice is not less com- mon, and it is more offensive, because it frequently amounts to a personal affront in attributing to a person opinions, 8^c, which he perhaps holds in abhorrence. Thus, when in a discussion one party vindicates, on the ground of general expediency, a particular instance of resistance to Government in a case of intole- rable oppression, the opponent may gravely maintain, that '' we ought not to do evil that good may come :" a proposition which of course had never been denied ; the point in dispute being " whether resistance in this par- ticular case xvere doing evil or not." In this i 15.^ OF FALLACIES. 213 example it is to be remarked (and the remark will apply very generally) that the Fallacy of petitio prificipii is combined with that of igno- rcitw elencM, which is a very common and successful practice ; viz, the Sophist proves, or disproves, not the proposition which is really in question, but one which so implies it as to proceed on the supposition that it is already decided, and can admit of no doubt ; by this means his '^ assumption of the point in question" is so indirect and oblique, that it may easily escape notice ; and he thus esta- blishes, practically, his Conclusion, at the very moment he is withdrawing your attention from it to another question. There are certain kinds of argument re- counted and named by Logical writers, which we should by no means universally call Fal- lacies ; but which when unfairly used, and so far as they are fallacious, may very well be referred to the present head ; such as the '' ar- gumentum ad hominem" or personal argument, '^^f^^^""^ '' ar gumentum ad verecundiam" " argumentum ^''' ad populum" Sfc. all of them regarded as con- tradistinguished from " argumentum ad rem" or according to others (meaning probably the very same thing) '' ad judicium" These have all been descibed in the lax and popular lan- guage before alluded to, but not scientifically : the *' argumentum' ad hominem" they say, " is 214 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL addressed to the peculiar circumstances, cha- racter, avowed opinions, or past conduct of the individual, and therefore has a reference to him only, and does not bear directly and absolutely on the real question, as the ' argu- mentum ad rem ' does :" in like manner, the ^^ argumentum ad verecundiam'' is described as an appeal to our reverence for some respected authority, some venerable institution, S^c, and the " argumentum ad populum,'' as an appeal to the prejudices, passions, S^c, of the multi- tude ; and so of the rest. Along with these is usually enumerated '' argumentum ad ignoran- tiam" which is here omitted, as being evi- dently nothing more than the employment of some kind of Fallacy, in the widest sense of that word, towards such as are likely to be deceived by it. It appears then (to speak rather more technically) that in the '' argu- mentum ad hominem'' the conclusion which actually is established, is not the absolute and general one in question, but relative and par- ticular ; viz. not that " such and such is the fact," but that " this man is bound to admit it, in conformity to his principles of Reasoning, or in consistency with his own conduct, situa- tion," ^c* Such a Conclusion it is often * " The argumentum ad hominem " will often have the effect of shifting the burden of proof not unjustly, to the adversary. (See Rhet.) A common instance is the § 15.] OF FALLACIES. 215 both allowable and necessary to establish, in order to silence those who will not yield to fair general argument ; or to convince those whose weakness and prejudices would not allow them to assign to it its due weight : it is thus that our Lord on many occasions silences the cavils of the Jews ; as in the vindication of healing on the Sabbath, which is paralleled by the authorized practice of drawing out a beast that has fallen into a pit. All this, as we have said, is perfectly fair, provided it be defence, certainly the readiest and most concise, fre- quently urged by the Sportsman, when accused of bar- barity in sacrificing unoffending hares or trout to his amusement : he replies, as he may safely do, to most of his assailants, " why do you feed on the flesh of animals ?" and that this answer presses hard, is manifested by its being usually opposed by a palpable falsehood ; viz. that the animals which are killed for food are sacrificed to our necessities ; though not only men can, but a large propor- tion (probably a great majority) of the human race actually do, subsist in health and vigour without flesh- diet ; and the earth would support a much greater human population were such a practice universal. When shamed out of this argument they sometimes urge that the brute creation would overrun the earth, if we did not kill them for food ; an argument, which, if it were valid at all, would not justify their feeding on Jish ; though, if fairly followed up, it would justify Swift's proposal for keeping down the excessive population of Ireland. The true reason, viz. that they eat flesh for the gratification of the palate, and have a taste for the pleasures of the table, though not for the sports of the field, is one which they do not like to assign. 216 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL done plainly, and avowedly; but if you at- tempt to substitute this partial and relative Conclusion for a more general one — if you tri- umph as having estabhshed your proposition absolutely and universally, from having esta- blished it, in reality, only as far as it relates to your opponent, then you are guilty of a Fallacy of the kind which we are now treating of: your Conclusion is not in reality that which was, by your own account, proposed to be proved : the fallaciousness depends upon the deceit or attempt to deceive. The same ob- servations will apply to " argumentum ad verecundiam,'' and the rest. It is very common to employ an ambiguous Term for the purpose of introducing the Fallacy of irrelevant Conclusion : L e, when you cannot prove your proposition in the sense in which it was maintained, to prove it in some other sense ; e, g, these who contend against the efficacy of faith, usually employ that word in their arguments in the sense of mere belief, unaccompanied with any moral or practical result, but considered as a mere intellectual process ; and when they have thus proved their Conclusion, they oppose it to one in which the word is used in a widely different sense.* * " When the occasion or object in question is not sucli as calls for, or as is likely to excite in those particular § 16.] OF FALLACIES. 217 §16. The Fallacy of ignoratio elenchi is nowhere more common than in protracted controversy, when one of the parties, after having at- tempted in vain to maintain his position, shifts his ground as covertly as possible to another, instead of honestly giving up the point. An instance occurs in an attack made on the readers or hearers, the emotions required, it is a common Rhetorical artifice to turn their attention to some object which will call forth these feelings ; and when they are too much excited to be capable of judging calmly, it will not be difficult to turn their Passions, once roused, in the direction required, and to make them view the case before them in a very different light. When the metal is heated it may easily be moulded into the desired form. Thus vehement indignation against some crime, may be directed against a person who has not been proved guilty of it ; and vague declamations against corruption, oppression, 8^c. or against the mischiefs of anarchy ; with high-flown panegyrics on liberty, rights of man, ^c. or on social order, justice, the constitution, law, religion, Sfc. will gradually lead the hearers to take for granted, without proof, that the measure proposed will lead to these evils or these advantages ; and it will in consequence become the object of groundless abhorrence or admiration. For the very utterance of such words as have a multitude of what may be called stimulating ideas associated with them, will operate like a charm on the minds, especially of the ignorant and unthinking, and raise such a tumult of feeling, as will effectually blind their judgment ; so that a string of vague abuse or panegyric will often have the effect of a train of sound Argument," — Rhetoric, Part II. Chap. ii. § 6. Ihe two Pre- mises aller- iiatety. 218 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL system pursued at one of our Universities. The objectors, finding themselves unable to maintain their charge of the present neglect of Mathematics in that place, (to w^hich neglect they attributed the late general decline in those studies) shifted their ground, and contended that that University was never famous for Ma- thematicians : which not only does not estabhsh, but absolutely overthrows, their own original assertion ; for if it never succeeded in those pur- suits, it could not have caused their late decline. Fallacy of A oractice of this nature is common in oral combating ^ controversy especially ; viz, that of combating both your opponent's Premises alternately, and shifting the attack from the one to the other, without waiting to have either of them de- cided upon before you quit it. It has been remarked above, that one class of the propositions that may be, in this Fal- lacy, substituted for the one required, is the particular for the universal: similar to this, is the substitution of a conditional with a uni- versal antecedent, for one with a particular antecedent, which will usually be the harder to prove : e, g, you are called on, suppose, to prove that '' if any private interests are hurt by a proposed measure, it is inexpedient;" and you pretend to have done so by showing that " if all private interests are hurt by it, it must be inexpedient." Nearly akin to this is the §17.] OF FALLACIES. 219 very common case of proving something to be possible when it ought to have been proved highly probable; or probable, when it ought to have been proved necessary; or, which comes to the very same, proving it to be not necessary, when it should have been proved not probable ; or improbable, when it should have been proved impossible. Aristotle (in Rhet. Book II.) complains of this last branch of the Fallacy, as giving an undue advantage to the respondent ; many a guilty person owes his acquittal to this ; the jury considering that the evidence brought does not demonstrate the absolute impossibihty of his being inno- cent, though perhaps the chances are innu- merable against it. §17. Similar to this case is that which may be ^'^Im^^^^ called the Fallacy of objections : i, e. showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it. This is the main, and almost universal Fallacy of infidels, and is that of which men should be first and prin- cipally warned. This is also the strong hold of bigoted anti-innovators, who oppose all 220 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book III. reforms and alterations indiscriminately ; for there never was, nor will be, any plan executed or proposed, against which strong and even unanswerable objections may not be urged ; so that unless the opposite objections be set in the balance on the other side, we can never advance a step. " There are objections," said Dr. Johnson, " against a plenum, and objections against a vacuum ; but one of them must be true."* * This is, as has been said, the principal engine em- ployed by the adversaries of our Faith : they find nume- rous " objections " against various parts of Scripture; to some of which no satisfactory answer can be given ; and the incautious hearer is apt, while his attention is fixed on these, to forget that there are infinitely more, and stronger objections against the supposition that the Christian Re- ligion is of human origin ; and that where we cannot answer all objections, we are bound in reason and in can- dour to adopt the hypothesis which labours under the least. That the case is as I have stated, I am authorized to assume, from this circumstance ; that no complete and consistent account has ever been given of the manner in which the Christian Religion, supposing it a human contri- vance, could have arisen and prevailed as it did. And yet this may obviously be demanded with the utmost fairness, of those who deny its divine origin. The Religion exists: that is the phenomenon ; those who will not allow it to have come from God, are bound to solve the phenomenon on some other hypothesis less open to objections ; they are not indeed called on to prove that it actually did arise in this or that way ; but to suggest (consistently with acknowledged facts) some probable way in which it 7nay have arisen, reconcileable with all the circumstances of the case. That infidels have never done this, though they § 18] OF FALLACIES. 221 The very same Fallacy indeed is employed on the other side, by those who are for over- throwing whatever is established as soon as they can prove an objection against it, with- out considering whether more and weightier objections may not lie against their own schemes : but their opponents have this de- cided advantage over them, that they can urge with great plausibility, "we do not call upon you to r^eject at once whatever is ob- jected to, but merely to suspend your judgment, and not come to a decision as long as there are reasons on both sides:" now since there always will be reasons on both sides, this 7ion- decision is practically the very same thing as a decision in favour of the existing state of things ; the delay of trial becomes equivalent to an acquittal,^ §18. Another form of i^noratio elenchi, which is F^'i-^/^y of *-' -^ proving a also rather the more serviceable on the side 5ue8ti*on?^ have had near 2000 years to try, amounts to a confession that no such hypothesis can be devised, which will not be open to greater objections than lie against Christianity. * " Not to resolve, is to resolve." Bacon. How happy it is for mankind that in the most momen- tous concerns of life their decision is generally formed ^br them by external circumstances : which thus saves them not only from the perplexity of doubt and the danger of delay, but also from the pain of regret ; since we acquiesce much more cheerfully in that which is unavoidable. 222 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book III of the respondent, is, to prove or disprove some part of that v^^hich is required, and dwell on that, suppressing all the rest. Thus, if a University is charged with culti- vating only the mere elements of Mathematics, and in reply a list of the books studied there is produced, should even any one of those books be not elementary, the charge is in fairness refuted; but the Sophist may then earnestly contend that some of those books are elementary; and thus keep out of sight the real question, viz. whether they are all so. This is the great art of the answerer of a book; suppose the main positions in any work to be irrefragable, it will be strange if some illustration of them, or some subordinate part in short, will not admit of a plausible objection ; the opponent then joins issue on one of these incidental questions, and comes forward with '' a Reply " to such and such a work. Hence the danger of ever advancing more than can be well maintained ;^ since the refu- tation of that will often quash the whole : a guilty person may often escape by having too * The Quakers would perhaps before now have suc- ceeded in doing away our superfluous and irreverent oaths, if they had not, besides many valid and strong arguments, adduced so many that are weak and easily refuted. § 19.J OF FALLACIES. 223 much laid to his charge ; so he may also by having too much evidence against him, Le, some that is not in itself satisfactory : thus, a prisoner may sometimes obtain acquittal by showing that one of the w^itnesses against him is an infamous informer and spy ; though perhaps if that part of the evidence had been omitted, the rest would have been sufficient for conviction. Cases of this nature might very well be re- ferred also to the Fallacy formerly mentioned, of inferring the Falsity of the Conclusion from the Falsity of a Premiss ; which indeed is very closely allied to the present Fallacy : the real question is, " whether or not this Conclusion ought to be admitted;" the Sophist confines himself to the question, " whether or not it is established by this particular argument ;" leaving it to be inferred by the audience, if he has carried his point as to the latter question, that the former is thereby decided. §19. It will readily be perceived that nothing is suppressed Conclusion. less conducive to the success of the Fallacy in question than to state clearly, in the outset, either the proposition you are about to prove, or that which you ought to prove : it answers best to begin with the Premises, and to in- troduce a pretty long chain of argument before 224 ELEMENTS OF LOGIC. [Book IIL you arrive at the Conclusion. The careless hearer takes for granted, at the beginning, that this chain will lead to the Conclusion required ; and by the time you are come to the end, he is ready to take for granted that the Conclusion which you draw is the one required ; his idea of the question having gradually become indistinct. This Fallacy is greatly aided by the common practice of suppressing the Conclusion and leaving it to be supplied by the hearer, who is of course less likely to perceive whether it be really that '^ which was to be proved," than if it were distinctly stated. The practice therefore is at best suspicious ; and it is better in general to avoid it, and to give and require a distinct statement of the Conclusion intended. § 20. Jests. Before we dismiss the subject of Fallacies, it may not be improper to mention the just and ingenious remark, that Jests are Fallacies;* i, e. Fallacies so palpable as not to be likely to deceive any one, but yet bearing just that resemblance of argument which is calculated to amuse by the contrast; in the same manner that a parody does, by the contrast of its levity with the serious production which it imitates. There is indeed something * See Wallis's Logic. § 20.] OF FALLACIES. 225 laughable even in Fallacies which are in- tended for serious conviction, when they are thoroughly exposed. There are several dif- ferent kinds of joke and raillery, which will be found to correspond with the different kinds of Fallacy : the pun (to take the simplest and most obvious case) is evidently, in most in- stances, a mock argument founded on a pal- pable equivocation of the middle Term : and the rest in like manner will be found to correspond to the respective Fallacies, and to be imitations of serious argument. It is probable indeed that all jests, sports, or games, (TracScal) properly so called, will be found, on examination, to be imitative of serious transactions ; as of War, or Commerce.* But to enter fully into this subject would be un- suitable to the present occasion. I shall subjoin some general remarks on the legitimate province of Reasoning, and on its connection with Inductive philosophy, and with Rhetoric : on which points much misap- prehension has prevailed, tending to throw obscurity over the design and use of the Science under consideration. * See some excellent remarks on ** Imitation," in Dr. A. Smith's posthumous Essays. Q 226 [Book IV. BOOK IV. DISSERTATION ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. Logic being concerned with the theory of Reasoning, it is evidently necessary, in order to take a correct view of this Science, that all misapprehensions should be removed relative to the occasions on which the Reasoning- process is employed, — the purposes it has in view, — and the limits within which it is confined. Simple and obvious as such questions may appear to those who have not thought much on the subject, they will appear on further consideration to be involved in much per- plexity and obscurity, from the vague and inaccurate language of many popular writers. To the confused and incorrect notions that prevail respecting the Reasoning-process may be traced most of the common mistakes re- specting the Science of Logic, and much of the unsound and unphilosophical argumen- I ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. 227 ( tation which is so often to be met with in the ' works of ingenious writers. These errors have been incidentally ad- verted to in the foregoing part of this work ; but it may be desirable, before we dismiss the subject, to offer on these points some further remarks, which could not have been there introduced without too great an interruption to the development of the system. Little or nothing indeed remains to be said that is ( not implied in the principles which have been / already laid down ; but the results and appli- cations of those principles are liable in many instances to be overlooked, if not distinctly \ pointed out. These supplementary observa- ; tions will neither require, nor admit of^ so /Systematic an arrangement as has hitherto '< been aimed at ; since they will be such as are suggested principally by the objections and mistakes of those who have misunder- stood, partially or entirely, the nature of the Logical system. q2 228 Book IV. Chap. I. Of Induction, §1- Mistake of MucH has been said by some writers of the opposing , , Jjuogtm.**' superiority of the Inductive to the Syllogistic method of seeking truth, as if the two stood opposed to each other ; and of the advantage of substituting the Organon of Bacon for that of Aristotle, ^c. S^c, which indicates a total misconception of the nature of both. There is, however, the more excuse for the confu- sion of thought which prevails on this subject, because eminent Logical writers have treated, or at least have appeared to treat, of Induc- tion as a distinct kind of argument from the Syllogism ; which if it were, it certainly might be contrasted with the Syllogism : or rather the whole Syllogistic theory would fall to the ground/ since one of the very first principles it establishes, is that all Reasoning, on what- ever subject, is one and the same process, which may be clearly exhibited in the form of Syllogisms. It is hardly to be supposed, therefore, that this was the deUberate mean- ing of those writers ; though it must be CiiAP. I. § 1.] OF INDUCTION. 229 admitted that they have countenanced the error in question, by their inaccurate expres- sions. This inaccuracy seems chiefly to have arisen from a vagueness in the use of the word Induction, which is sometimes employed to designate the process of investigation and of collecting facts ; sometimes, the deducing ^ of an inference /rom those facts. The former of these processes (viz, that of observation and experiment) is undoubtedly distinct from that which takes place in the Syllogism ; / but then it is not a process of argument ; the ) latter again is an argumentative process ; but ) then it is, like all other arguments, capable of Vf being Syllogistically expressed. And hence ) Induction has come to be regarded as a distinct \ kind of argument from the Syllogism. This ( Fallacy cannot be more concisely or clearly ) stated, than in the technical form with which ( we may now presume our readers to be ^ familiar. *^ Induction is distinct from Syllogism : ' Induction is a process of Reasoning ;" therefore ** There is a process of Reasoning distinct from Syllogism." Here, " Induction," which is the middle ^ Term, is used in different senses in the two Premises. Av In the process of Reasoning by which we Analysis of ^ . Induction. deduce, from our observation of certain known 230 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. cases, an inference with respect to unknown ones, we are employing a Syllogism in Bar- bara with the major * Premiss suppressed ; -^ that being always substantially the same, as it ^ asserts, that " what belongs to the individual or individuals we have examined, belongs to the whole class under which they come :" e,g. from an examination of the history of several tyrannies, and finding that each of them was of short duration, we conclude, that '' the same ^' is likely to be the case with all tyrannies ;" the suppressed major Premiss being easily supplied by the hearer ; viz, '' that what belongs to the tyrannies in question is likely to belong to all." Induction, therefore, so far forth as it is an argument, may, of course, be stated Syllo- gistically : but so far forth as it is a process of inquiry with a view to obtain the Premises of that argument, it is, of course, out of the province of Logic.f Whether the Induction * Not the minor, as Aldrich represents it. The instance he gives will sufficiently prove this : " This and that, and the other magnet attract iron : therefore so do all." If this were, as he asserts, an Enthymeme whose minor is suppressed, the only Premiss which we could supply, to fill it up, would be, " All magnets are this, that, and the other ;" which is manifestly false. f And this is the original and strict sense of the word. Induction means properly, not the deducing of the con- clusion, but the bringing in, one by one, of instances, bearing on the point in question, till a sufficient number has been collected. Chap. I. § 2.] OF INDUCTION. 231 (in this last sense) has been sufficiently ample, L e. takes in a sufficient number of individual cases, — whether the character of those cases has been correctly ascertained — and how far the individuals we have examined are likeli/ to resemble, in this or that circumstance, the rest of the class, S^c, S^c, are points that require indeed great judgment and caution ; but this judgment and caution are not to be aided by : Logic, because they are, in reality, employed in deciding whether or not it is fair and \ allowable to lay down your Premises ; i, e. whether you are authorized or not, to assert, that " what is true of the individuals you y/ have examined, is true of the whole class :" and that this or that is true of those indivi- duals. Now, the rules of Logic have nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the Premises, except of course when they are the conclu- sions of former arguments ; but merely teach us to decide, not whether the Premises are fairly laid down, but whether the Conclusion ^follows fairly from the Premises or not. §2. Whether the Premiss may fairly be assumed. Assumption •,., , i»Ti***^ Premises or not, IS a pomt which cannot be decided in induction. without a competent knowledge of the nature of the subject ; e, g, in Natural Philosophy, in which the circumstances that in any case affect 232 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. the result, are usually far more clearly ascer- tained, a single instance is often accounted a sufficient Induction; e,g, having once ascer- tained that an individual magnet will attract iron, we are authorized to conclude that this property is universal : in the affairs of human life, on the other hand, a much fuller Induc- tion is required, as in the former example. 1 1 In short, the degree of evidence for any propo- sition we originally assume as a Premiss (whether the expressed or the suppressed ( one) is not to be learned from Logic, nor \ indeed from ani/ one disti?tct Science ; but ^ is the province of whatever Science furnishes y j the subject-matter of your argument. None \but a Politician can judge rightly of the de- ( gree of evidence of a proposition in Politics ; a Naturalist, in Natural History, Sfc, Sfc, investiga- E, G. ixovcL examiuatiou of many horned animals, as sheep, cows, ^c, a Naturalist finds that they have cloven feet ; now his sMll as a Naturalist is to be shown in judging whether these animals are likely to resemble in the form of their feet all other horned animals ; and it is the exercise of this judgment, toge- ther with the examination of individuals, that constitutes what is usually meant by the In- ductive process; which is that by which we gain, properly, new truths, and which is not connected with Logic ; being not what is tion Chap. I.§2.] OF INDUCTION. 233 ( strictly called Reasoning, but Investigation. { But when this major Premiss is granted him, \ and is combined with the minor, viz, that the animals he has examined have cloven feet, ' then he draws the Conclusion Logically: viz. that " the feet of all horned animals are clo- ven." * Again, if from several times meeting with ill-luck on a Friday, any one concluded that Friday, universally, is an unlucky day, one would object to his Induction; and yet it would not be, as an argument, illogical; since the Conclusion follows fairly, if you grant his implied Premiss, that the events which happened on those particular Fridays are such as must hapen on all Fridays ; but we should object to his laying down this Pre- miss : and therefore should justly say that » his Induction was faulty, though his argument were correct. And here it may be remarked, that the Ti.e more / , doubtful Pi \ ordinary rule for fair argument, viz. that ^;^'g\J7:„ / in an Enthymeme the suppressed Premiss ^"'^"''^*""* / should be always the one of whose truth , least doubt can exist, is not observed in In- duction : for the Premiss which is usually the more doubtful of the two, is, in that, the * I have selected an instance in which Induction is the only ground we have to rest on ; no reason, that I know of, having ever been assigned that could have led us to conjecture this curious fact ^ priori. 234 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. major; it being in few cases quite certain that the individuals, respecting which some point has been ascertained, are to be fairly regarded as a sample of the whole class : the major Premiss, nevertheless, is seldom expressed, for the reason just given, that it is easily understood, as being, mutatis mutandis, the same in every Induction. What has been said of Induction will equally apply to Example ; which differs from it only in having a singular instead of a general Conclusion ; e. g, in the instance above, if the Conclusion had been drawn, not respecting tyrannies in general, but re- specting this or that tyranny, that it was not likely to be lasting, each of the cases adduced to prove this would have been called an Example. CuAP.ii,§i.] 235 < Chap. II. On the Discovery of Truth. §1- Whether it is by a process of Reasoning that New Truths are brought to hght, is a question which seems to be decided in the ne- gative by what has been already said ; though many eminent writers seem to have taken for granted the affirmative. It is, perhaps, in a great measure, a dispute concerning the use of words; but it is not, for that reason, either uninteresting or unimportant, since an inaccu- rate use of language may often, in matters of \ Science, lead to confusion of thought, and to ' erroneous conclusions. And, in the present instance, much of the undeserved contempt which has been bestowed on the Logical sys- tem may be traced to this source ; for when any one has laid down, that " Reasoning is } important in the discovery of Truth," and that ^ : ^' Logic is of no service in the discovery of (^ Truth," (each of which propositions is true \ in a certain sense of the terms employed, { but not in the same sense) he is naturally 236 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. led to conclude, that there are processes of Reasoning to which the Syllogistic theory does not apply, and, of course, to misconceive alto- gether the nature of the Science. In maintaining the negative side of the above question, three things are to be pre- mised : first, that it is not contended that discoveries of any kind of Truth can be made (or at least are usually made) without Reason- ing ; only, that Reasoning is not the whole of the process, nor the whole of that which is / important therein ; secondly, that Reasoning i shall be taken in the sense, not of every exer- // \cise of the Reason, but of Argumentation, in /which we have all along used it, and in \ which it has been defined by all the Logical [writers, viz, " from certain granted propo- / sitions to infer another proposition as the consequence of them : " thirdly, that by a '^ New Truth," be understood something nei- ther expressly nor virtually asserted before, — not implied and involved in anything already known. To prove, then, this point demonstratively becomes in this manner perfectly easy ; for since all Reasoning (in the sense above de- fined) may be resolved into Syllogisms ; and since even the objectors to Logic make it a subject of complaint, that in a Syllogism the Premises do virtually assert the Conclusion, Chap. II. §1.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 237 it follows at once that no New Truth (as above defined) can be elicited by any process of Reasoning. It is on this ground, indeed, that the justly- celebrated author of the Philosophy of Rhetoric objects to the Syllogism altogether, as necessa- rily involving a petitio principii ; an objection which, of course, he would not have been dis- posed to bring forward, had he perceived that, whether well or ill-founded, it lies against all arguments whatever. Had he been aware that a Syllogism is no distinct kind of argument otherwise than in form, but is, in fact, any argument whatever, stated regularly and at I full length, he would have obtained a more ) correct view of the object of all Reasoning ; ) which is, merely to expand and unfold the i^ assertions wrapt up, as it were, and implied ' in those with which we set out, and to bring a person to perceive and acknowledge the full force of that which he has admitted ; to con- template it in various points of view ; to admit in one shape what he has already admitted in another, and to give up and disallow whatever is inconsistent with it. Nor is it always a very easy task even to bring before the mind the several bearings, — the various applications, — of any one proposi- tion. A common Term comprehends several, often numberless individuals; and these often. 238 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. in some respects, widely differing from each other; and no one can be, on each occasion of his employing such a Term, attending to and fixing his mind on each of the individuals, or even of the species so comprehended. It is to be remembered, too, that both Division and Generalization are in a great degree arbi- trary ; i. e, that we may both divide the same genus on several different principles, and may refer the same species to several different classes, according to the nature of the dis- course and drift of the argument; each of which classes will furnish a distinct middle Term for an argument, according to the question. E, G. If we wished to prove that "a horse feels," (to adopt an ill-chosen ex- ample from the above writer,) we might refer it to the genus " animal ; " to prove that " it has only a single stomach," to the genus of '' non-ruminants ; " to prove that it is " likely to degenerate in a very cold climate," we should class it with " original productions of a hot climate," ^c. Sfc. Now, each of these, and numberless others to which the same thing might be referred, are impUed by the very term, "horse;" yet it cannot be ex- pected that they can all be at once pre- sent to the mind whenever that term is uttered. Much less, when, instead of such a Term as that, we are employing Terms Chap. II. § 1.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 239 of a very abstract and, perhaps, complex signification,* as '' government, justice," S^c, ^^ The ten Categories f or Predicaments, categories, which Aristotle and other Logical writers have treated of, being certain general heads ^ or summa genera, to one or more of which every Term may be referred, serve the pur- pose of marking out certain tracks, as it were, \ which are to be pursued in searching for ( I middle Terms, in each argument respectively ; ^ I it being essential that we should generalize I on a right principle, with a view to the ques- tion before us ; or, in other words, that we should abstract that portion of any object presented to the mind, which is important (to the argument in hand. There are ex- pressions in common use which have a re- ference to this caution; such as, "this is a question, not as to the nature of the object, * On this point there are some valuable remarks in the Philosophy of Rhetoric itself, Book IV. Chap. vii. f The Categories enumerated by Aristotle, are ovaLa, noaov, TToIov, Trpocrn, ttoi/, Trore, Ksitrdai, c'x^iv, ttoieIv, TTtio-xeiv ; which are usually rendered, as adequately as, perhaps, they can be in our language, Substance, Quan- tity, Quality, Relation, Place, Time, Situation, Posses- sion, Action, Suffering. The Catalogue has been by some writers enlarged, as it is evident may easily be done by subdividing some of the heads ; and by others curtailed, as it is no less evident that all may ultimately ;^ be referred to the two heads of Substance and AttrihutCf or (in the language of some Logicians) Occident. 240 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. /. i hut the magnitude o^ it :'' ''this is a question \ of time, or of place" 8^c., i. e. " the subject must be referred to this or to that Category." With respect to the meaning of the Terms in question, ''Discovery," and "New Truth;" it matters not whether we confine ourselves to the narrowest sense, or admit the widest, pro- vided we do but distinguish: there certainly are two kinds of " New Truth" and of Two kinds of " Discovery," if we take those words in the widest sense in which they are ever used. First, such Truths as were, before they were discovered, absolutely unknown, being not im- plied by anything we previously knew, though : we might perhaps suspect them as probable ; ,- such are all matters of fact strictly so called, when first made known to one who had not any such previous knowledge, as would enable him to ascertain them h priori ; i, e, by Rea- soning ; as, if we inform a man that we have a colony at Botany Bay ; or that the earth is at such a distance from the sun ; or that platina is heavier than gold. The commu- nication of this kind of knowledge is most Information, usually, aud most strictly, called information; we gain it from observation, and from testi- mony ; no mere internal zmr^kings of our own . minds (except when the mind itself is the very object to be observed), or mere discus- sions in words, will make these known to us ; Chap. II. §1.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 241 though there is great room for sagacity in Judging xvhat testimony to admit, and forming conjectures that may lead to profitable obser- vation, and to experiments with a view to it. The other class of Discoveries is of a very different nature. That which may be ehcited by Reasoning, and consequently is implied in / that which we already know, we assent to on .) that ground, and not from observation or tes- I timony : to take a Geometrical truth upon 1^ trust, or to attempt to ascertain it by obser- vation, would betray a total ignorance of the nature of the Science. In the longest de- monstration, the Mathematical teacher seems instructton. only to lead us to make use of our own stores, ^ and point out to us how much we had already admitted; and, in the case of many Ethical y propositions, we assent at first hearing, though perhaps we had never heard or thought of the proposition before ; so also do we readily as- sent to the testimony of a respectable man, who tells us that our troops have gained a victory; but how different is the nature of the assent in the two cases. In the latter we are ready to thank the man for his infor- mation, as being such as no wisdom or learn- ing would have enabled us to ascertain ; in the former, we usually exclaim ''very true!" " that is a valuable and just remark ; that ^ never struck me before!" implying at once R < 242 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. our practical ignorance of it, and also our consciousness that we possess, in what we already know, the means to ascertain the truth of it ; that we have a right, in short, to bear our testimony to its truth. To all practical purposes, indeed, a Truth of this description may be as completely un- known to a man as the other; but as soon as it is set before him, and the argument by which it is connected with his previous no- tions is made clear to him, he recognises it as something conformable to, and contained in, his former belief. T^'^^^^^^TIT^^ It is not improbable that Plato's doctrine of Reminiscence arose from a hasty extension of what he had observed in this class, to all ac- quisition of knowledge whatever. His Theory of ideas served to confound together matters of fact respecting the nature of things, (which may be perfectly new to us) with propositions relating to our own notions, and modes of thought; (or to speak, perhaps, more cor- rectly, our own arbitrary signs) which propo- sitions must be contained and implied in those very complex notions themselves ; and whose truth is a conformity, not to the nature of things, but to our own hypothesis. Such are all propositions in pure Mathematics, and many in Ethics, viz, those which involve no assertion as to real matters of fact. It has Chap. II. § 1.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 243 been rightly remarked,* that Mathematical propositions are not properly true or false, in the same sense as any proposition respect- ing real fact is so called ; and hence the truth ^- (such as it is) of such propositions is necessary and eternal; since it amounts only to this, that any complex notion which you have ar- •' bitrarily framed, must be exactly conformable to itself. The proposition, that " the belief in a future state, combined with a complete devotion to the present life, is not consistent with the character of prudence," would be not at all the less true if a future state were a chimera, and prudence a quality which was no-where met with; nor would the truth of the Mathematician's conclusion be shaken, that "circles are to each other as the squares of their diameters," should it be found that there never had been a circle, or a square, con- formable to the definition in rerum natura. f * Dugald Stewart's Philosophy, Vol. II. •j- Hence the futility of the attempt of Clarke, and others, to demonstrate (in the mathematical sense) the existence of a Deity. This can only be done by covertly j assuming in the Premises the very point to be proved. ["^o matter of fact can be mathematically demonstrated; : \ though it may be proved in such a manner as to leave no idoubt on the mind. E. G. I have no more doubt that I met such and such a man, in this or that place, yesterday, than that the angles of a triangle are equal to two right angles: but the hind of certainty I have of these two truths is widely different ; to say, that I did not meet the R 2 244 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. ( The Ethical proposition, just instanced, is one of those which Locke calls " trifling," be- cause the Predicate is merely a part of the complex idea implied by the subject; and he is right, if by '"trifling" he means that it gives not, strictly speaking, any information : but he \ / should consider, that to remind a man of what he had not, and what he would not have \ thought of, may be, practically, as valuable i as giving him information ; and that most ^/ ) propositions in the best sermons, and all, in } pure Mathematics, are of the description / which he censures. It is, indeed, rather remarkable that he should speak so often of building Morals into a demonstrative Science, and yet speak so I slightingly of those very propositions to which we must absolutely confine ourselves, in order to give to Ethics even the appearance of such a Science ; for the instant you come to an assertion respecting a matter of fact, as that "' men (i, e, actually existing men) are bound to practise virtue," or ''are Hable to many temptations," you have stepped off the ground of strict demonstration, just as when you proceed to practical Geometry. ^ man, would be false indeed, but it would not be anything inconceivable i self-contradictory^ and absurd ; but it would be so, to deny the equality of the angles of a triangle to two right angles. Chap. II. § 1.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 245 But to return : it is of the utmost import- information ance to distinguish these two kmds of Dis- "o^- covery of Truth. In relation to the former, as I have said, the word " information " is most strictly applied ; the communication of the latter is more properly called " instruc- ^ tion" I speak of the usual practice ; for it would be going too far to pretend that writers are uniform and consistent in the use of these, or of any other term. We say that the His- torian gives us information respecting past times ; the Traveller, respecting foreign coun- tries : on the other hand, the Mathematician ^ gives instruction in the principles of his Sci- ! ence ; the Moralist instructs us in our duties ; and we generally use the expressions " a well- .^ C informed man," and " a well-instructed man," Un a sense conformable to that which has been here laid down. However, let the words be used as they may, the things are evidently different, and ought to be distinguished. It J is a question comparatively unimportant, whe- /| ther the term '' Discovery " shall or shall not be extended to the eliciting of those Truths, which, being implied in our previous know- ledge, may be established by mere strict j Reasoning. Similar verbal questions, indeed, might be raised respecting many other cases : \e,g, one has forgotten (i. e, cannot recollect) /the name of some person or place; perhaps U 246 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. we even try to think of it, but in vain ; at last some one reminds us, and we instantly recognise it as the one we wanted to recollect ; it may be asked, was this in our mind or not ? The answer is, that in one sense it was, and in another sense, it was not. Or, again, sup- pose there is a vein of metal on a man's estate, which he does not know of; is it part of his possessions or not ? and when he finds it out and works it, does he then acquire a new possession or not ? Certainly not, in the same sense as if he has a fresh estate bequeathed to him, which he had formerly no right to ; but to all practical purposes it is a new pos- session. This case, indeed, may serve as an illustration of the one we have been consider- ing ; and in all these cases, if the real distinc- tion be understood, the verbal question will not be of much consequence. To use one more illustration. Reasoning has been aptly compared to the piling together blocks of I stone ; on each of which, as on a pedestal, a j man can raise himself a small, and but a small, height above the plain ; but which, when skilfully built up, will form a flight of steps, which will raise him to a great eleva- tion. Now (to pursue this analogy) when the w^ materials are all ready to the builder's hand, ^ the blocks ready dug and brought, his work y resembles one of the two kinds of Discovery Chap. II. § 2.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 247 just mentioned, viz, that to which we have assigned the name of i?istruction : but if his i materials are to be entirely, or in part, pro- vided by himself, — if he himself is forced to dig fresh blocks from the quarry, — this cor- responds to the other kind of Discovery. §2. I have hitherto spoken of the employment pi.ysicai dis coveries. of argument in the establishment of those hypothetical Truths (as they may be called) which relate only to our own abstract no- tions ; it is not, however, meant to be in- sinuated that there is no room for Reasoning in the establishment of a matter of fact ; but the other class of Truths have first been treated of, because, in discussing subjects of that kind, the process of Reasoning is always the principal, and often the onli/ thing to be attended to, if we are but certain and clear as to the meaning of the terms; whereas, when assertions respecting real existence are ^ ('introduced, we have the additional and more *^ ) important business of ascertaining and keeping ( in mind the degree of evidence for those facts ; K since, otherwise, our Conclusions could not / be relied on, however accurate our Reason- / ing ; but, undoubtedly, we may by Reasoning arrive at matters of fact, if we have matters o^ fact to set out with as data; only that it 248 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. will very often happen that, ''from certain facts/' as Campbell remarks, '' we draw only probable Conclusions;" because the other Premiss introduced (which he overlooked) is only probable. He observed that in such an instance, for example, as the one lately given, we infer from the certainty that such and such tyrannies have been short-lived, the prohability that others will be so ; and he did not con- f; sider that there is an understood Premiss which is essential to the argument ; (viz, that all tyrannies will resemble those we have already observed) which being only of a pro- bable character, must attach the same degree of uncertainty to the Conclusion.* An indi- vidual fact is not ^infrequently elicited by skilfully combining, and Reasoning from, those already known ; of which many curious cases occur in the detection of criminals by officers of justice, and Barristers, who acquire by practice such dexterity in that particular de- partment, as to draw sometimes the right Conclusion from data, which might be in the possession of others, without being applied to * And the doubtfulness is multiplied, if both Premises are uncertain. For since it is only on the supposition of I both Premises being true, that we can calculate on the truth of the Conclusion, we must state in numbers the chances against each Premiss being true, and then mul- tiply these together, to judge of the degree of evidence of the Conclusion. — See Book III. & 14. Chap. II. § 2.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 249 the same use. In all cases of the establish- ment of a general fact from Induction, that general fact (as has been formerly remarked) -^ is ultimately established by Reasoning ; e, g, Bakewell, the celebrated cattle-breeder, ob- served, in a great number of individual beasts, a tendency to fatten readily, and in a great number of others the absence of this constitution : in every individual of the former description, he observed a certain peculiar make, though they differed widely in size, colour, S^c. Those of the latter descrip- tion differed no less in various points, but agreed in being of a different make from the others : these facts were his data ; from which combining them with the general prin- ciple, that Nature is steady and uniform in /her proceedings, he logically drew the conclu- / sion that beasts of the specified make have ^universally a peculiar tendency to fattening : y but then his principal merit consisted in making the observations, and in so combining them as to abstract from each of a multitude of cases, differing widely in many respects, the circumstances in which they all agreed ; and also in conjecturing skilfully how far those circumstances were likely to be found in the whole class : the making of such observations, ( and still more the combination, abstraction, '^\ and judgment employed, are what men com- 250 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. I monly mean (as was above observed) when f they speak of Induction ; and these operations ^ are certainly distinct from Reasoning.* The same observations will apply to numberless other cases ; as, for instance, to the Discovery of the law of *' vis inertice" and the other principles of Natural Philosophy. But to what class, it may be asked, should be referred the Discoveries thus made ? All would agree in calling them, when first ascer- tained, " New Truths," in the strictest sense ^ of the word ; which would seem to imply their belonging to the class which may be called by way of distinction, '^ Physical Disco- veries:" and yet their being ultimately esta- blished by Reasoning, would seem, according to the foregoing rule, to refer them to the other class, viz, what may be called " Logical I Logical Dis- Discoveries ;" since whatever is established bv // coveries. 'a *' ' Reasoning must have been contained and virtually asserted in the Premises. In answer i to this, it is to be observed, that they cer- ) tainly do belong to the latter class, relatively 1 to a person who is in possession of the '^ /data: but to him who is not, they are \New Truths of the other class ; for it is to be -./remembered, that the words " Discovery" ?(and "New Truths" are necessarily relative: there may be a proposition which is to one * See Book I. § 1. Note, Chap. II. § 2.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 251 person absolutely known ; to another (viz, one to whom it has never occurred, though he is in possession of all the data from which it may be proved) it will be (when he comes to perceive it, by a process of instruction) what we have called a Logical Discovery: to a third (viz, one who is ignorant of these data) it will be absolutely unknown, and will have been, when made known to him, a perfectly and properly New Truth, — a piece of information, — a Physical Discovery, as we have called it.* To the Philosopher, therefore, who arrives at the Discovery by Reasoning from his observa- tions, and from established principles com- bined with them, the Discovery is of the former class ; to the multitude, probably, of the latter, as they will have been most likely not possessed of all his data. It follows from what has been said, that in character of scientific Mathematics, and in such Ethical propositions "^"^''i- * It may be worth while in this place to define what is properly to be called Knowledge : it implies three things ; , . 1st, firm belief, 2dly, of what is true, Sdly, on sufficient grounds. If any one e. g. is in doubt respecting one of Euclid's demonstrations, he cannot be said to know the proposition proved by it ; if, again, he is fully convinced of anything that is not true, he is mistaken in supposing himself to know it ; lastly, if two persons are each fully confident, one that the moon is inhabited, and the other that it is not, (though one of these opinions must be true) neither of them could properly be said to know the truth, since he cannot have sufficient proof of it. 252 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. as we were lately speaking of, we do not allow the possibility of any but a Logical Discovery ; i, e, no proposition of that class can be true, which was not implied in the definitions and axioms we set out with, which are the first principles : for since these propositions do not profess to state any matter of fact, the only / Truth they can possess, consists in conformity / to the original principles : to one, therefore, K who knows these principles, such propositions \ are Truths already implied, since they may be developed to him by Reasoning, if he is not defective in the discursive faculty ; and again, to one who does not understand those princi- ples (L e, is not master of the definitions) such propositions are in great measure, if not wholly, unmeaning. On the other hand, pro- ^ positions relating to matters of fact, may he, indeed, imphed in what he already knew ; (as he who knows the cHmate of the Alps, the Andes, 8^c. Sfc, has virtually admitted the general fact, that '' the tops of mountains are comparatively cold") but as these possess an ^ absolute and physical Truth, they fnay also be absolutely '' new," their Truth not being im- plied by the mere terms of the propositions. The truth or falsity of any proposition con- cerning a triangle, is imphed by the meaning of that and of the other Geometrical terms ; whereas, though one may understand (in the Chap. II. § 3.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 253 ordinary sense of that word) the full meaning of the terms *' planet," and " inhabited/' and of all the other terms in the language, he cannot thence be certain that the planets are, or are not, inhabited. It has probably been the source of much '^ u^ Jfj ^^p perplexity, that the term ^' true'' has been 7 /l . ? r^ applied indiscriminately to two such different -/ classes of propositions. The term definition is Dennitions. used with the same laxity ; and much confu- ^/ sion has thence resulted. Such Definitions as y the Mathematical, must imply every attribute /that belongs to the thing defined; because j^ that thing is merely our meaning; which meaning the Definition lays down : whereas, /real substances, having an independent exist- / ence, may possess innumerable qualities (as Locke observes) not implied in the meaning we attach to their names, or, as Locke ex- presses it, in our ideas of them. *' Their Reaiaud ^ Nominal de- nominal essence (to use his language) is not '^"'''•'"*- /^ the same as their real essence;'' whereas the nominal essence, and the real essence, of a Circle, 8fc, are the same. A Mathematical Definition, therefore, cannot properly be called ^ true, since it is not properly a 'pr opposition, ^ * I mean in this place, that expression of a Definition in which the name is conjoined with that which is, pro- 254 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. (any more than an article in a Dictionary,) but merely an explanation of the meaning of j a Term. Perhaps in Definitions of this class, Mt might be better to substitute (as Aristotle / usually does) the imperative mood for the ( indicative : thus bringing them into the form of postulates; for the Definitions and the "^ Postulates in Mathematics differ in little or nothing but the form of expression : e, g, '' let a four-sided figure, of equal sides and right angles, be called a square," would clearly imply that such a figure is conceivable, and that the writer intended to employ that term to signify such a figure : which is precisely all that is meant to be asserted. If, indeed, a Mathematical writer mean to assert that the ordinary sense of the term is that which he has given, that, certainly, is a proposition, which must be either true or false; but in defining a new term, though the term indeed may be ill chosen and improper, or the Defi- nition may be self-contradictory, and conse- quently unintelHgible, the words '' true," and '"false," do not apply. The same may be said of what are called nominal Definitions of perly speaking, the definition of it, in the form of a pro- position : as e. g. " a Triangle is a plane superficial figure hounded by three straight lines:" the words in italics are what, strictly speaking, constitute the Defini- tion ; but what I am here speaking of is the whole sen- tence. Chap. II. § 4.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 255 other things^ ^. e. those which merely explain the meaning of the word ; viz, they can be true or false only when they profess (and so far as they profess) to give the ordinary and established meaning of the term. But those which are called real Definitions, mz, which unfold the nature of the thing, (which they may do in various degrees,) to these the epithet '' true " may be apphed ; and to make out such a Definition will often be the very "^ end (not as in Mathematics the beginning) of our study.* In Mathematics there is no such distinction between nominal and real Definition ; the meaning of the term, and the nature of the thing, being one and the same : so that no correct Definition whatever of any Mathema- tical term can be devised, which shall not imply every thing which belongs to the term. If^ /^ §4. When it is asked, then, whether such great Ambignity or Discoveries, as have been made m Natural i^*^''^«"'ng' Philosophy, were accomplished, or can be accomplished, by Reasoning? the inquirer should be reminded, that the question is am- ^ biguous; it may be answered in the affir- h mative, if by ^' Reasoning" is meant to be * Burke on Taste, in the Introduction to his '* Essay on the Sublime and Beautiful." > T-> 256 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. included the assumption of Premises, To the right performance of that work, is requi- site, not only, in many cases, the ascertain- ment of facts, and of the degree of evidence for doubtful propositions, (in which observation and experiment will often be indispensable,) but also a skilful selection and combinatio?i of known facts and principles; such as imphes, amongst other things, the exercise of that powerful abstraction which seizes the com- mon circumstances — the point of agreement — in a number of, otherwise, dissimilar indi- ) viduals; and it is in this that the greatest / genius is shown. But if " Reasoning" be ' understood in the limited sense in which it is usually defined, then we must answer in the negative ; and reply that such Discoveries are made by means of Reasoning combined with other operations. In the process I have been speaking of, there is much Reasoning throughout; and thence the whole has been carelessly called a '^pro- cess of Reasoning." It is not, indeed, any just ground of com- plaint that the word Reasoning is used in two senses; but that the two senses are perpe- tually confounded together: and hence it is that some Logical writers fancied that Rea- soning {viz, that which Logic treats of) was > the method of discovering Truth ; and that 1 Chap. II. §4.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 257 I SO many other writers have accordingly com- I plained of Logic for not accomplishing that ^end; urging that '"Syllogism" (i, e, Reason- ( ing ; though they overlooked the coincidence) never established any thing that is, strictly speaking, unknown to him who has granted the Premises : and proposing the introduction of a certain '' rational Logic" to accomplish this purpose ; L e, to direct the mind in the process of investigation. Supposing that some such system could be devised — that it c could even be brought into a scientific form, > (which he must be more sanguine than scien- tific who expects,) — that it were of the great- est conceivable utihty, — and that it should be allowed to bear the name of '^ Logic," (since it would not be worth while to contend about a name) still it would not, as these writers seem to suppose, have the same object pro- posed with the Aristotelian Logic ; or be in any respect a rival to that system. A plough may be a much more ingenious and valuable instrument than a flail; but it never can be substituted for it. Those Discoveries of general laws of Na- ture, 8fc, of which we have been speaking, being of that character which we have de- scribed by the name of " Logical Discoveries," (, to him xvho is in possession of all the Premises from which they are deduced; but being, to the s 258 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. multitude (who are unacquainted with many of those Premises) strictly " New Truths," hence it is, that men in general give to the general facts, and to them, most peculiarly, the name oi Discoveries ; for to themselves they are such, in the strictest sense ; the Premises from which they were inferred being not only originally unknown to them, but frequently remaining unknown to the very last ; e, g, the general conclusion concerning cattle, which Bakewell made known, is what most Agri- culturists (and many others also) are ac- quainted with ; but the Premises he set out with, viz, the facts respecting this, that, and the other, individual ox, (the ascertainment of which facts was his first Discovery,) these are what few know, or care to know, with any exact particularity. Observation Aud it may be added, that these disco- antl experi- . • i p nient. vcries of particular facts, which are the immediate result of observation, are, in them- ' selves, uninteresting and insignificant, till they i^ are combined so as to lead to a grand general \ result ; those who on each occasion watched < the motions, and registered the times of oc- cultation of Jupiter's satellites, little thought, perhaps, themselves, what magnificent results they were preparing the way for.* So that * Hence, Bacon urges us to pursue Truth, without always requiring to perceive its practical application. Chap. II. §4.J DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 259 there is an additional cause which has con- fined the term Discovery to these grand ge- neral conclusions ; and, as was just observed, they are, to the generality of men, perfectly New Truths in the strictest sense of the word, not being implied in any previous knowledge they possessed. Very often it will happen, indeed, that the conclusion thus drawn will amount only to a probable conjecture; which conjecture will dictate to the inquirer such an experiment, or course of experiments, as will fully establish the fact: thus Sir H. Davy, from finding that the flame of hydrogen gas was not communicated through a long slender tube, conjectured that a shorter but still slen- derer tube would answer the same purpose ; this led him to try the experiments, in which, by continually shortening the tube, and at the same time lessening its bore, he arrived at last at the wire-gauze of his safety-lamp. It is to be observed also, that whatever credit is conveyed by the word '^ Discovery," to him who is regarded as the author of it, is well deserved by those who skilfully select and combine known Truths {especially/ such as have been long and generally known) so as to elicit important, and hitherto unthought- of, conclusions; their's is the master-mind: — apxtre/cTovLKr) p6v7j(TLs. Whereas men of very inferior powers may sometimes, by immediate s 2 260 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. observation, discover perfectly new facts, em- pirically ; and thus be of service in furnishing materials to the others ; to whom they stand in the same relation (to recur to a former illustration) as the brickmaker or stone- quarrier to the architect. It is peculiarly creditable to Adam Smith, and to Mr. Mal- thus, that the data from which they drew such important Conclusions had been in every one's hands for centuries. As for Mathematical Discoveries, they (as we have before said) must always be of the description to which we have given the name of " Logical Discoveries ;" since to him who properly comprehends the meaning of the Mathematical terms, (and to no other are the Truths themselves, properly speaking, intel- ligible) those results are implied in his pre- vious knowledge, since they are Logically deducible therefrom. It is not, however, meant to be implied, that Mathematical Dis- coveries are effected by pure Reasoning, and by that singly. For though there is not here, as in Physics, any exercise of judgment as to the degree of evidence of the Premises, nor any experiments and observations, yet there is the same call for skill in the selection and combina- tion of the Premises in such a manner as shall be best calculated to lead to a new, that is, unperceived and unthought-of Conclusion. Chap. II. §5.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 261 In following, indeed, and taking in a de- monstration, nothing is called for but pure Reasoning ; but the assumption of Premises is not a part of Reasoning, in the strict and tech- nical sense of that term. Accordingly, there are many who can follow a Mathematical demonstration, or any other train of argu- ment, who would not succeed well in framing one of their own.* §5. For both kinds of Discovery then, the Lo- operations * connected .y gical, as well as the Physical, certain opera- ^^^ ^^'"""■ tions are requisite, beyond those which can fairly be comprehended under the strict sense of the word " Reasoning ;" in the Logical, is required a skilful selection and combination of / ( known Truths: in the Physical, we must em- j ploy, in addition (generally speaking) to that process, observation and experiment. It will generally happen, that in the study of nature, and, universally, in all that relates to matters of fact, both kinds of investigation will be i united ; i, e, some of the facts or principles you reason from as Premises, must be ascer- tained by observation; or, as in the case of the safety-lamp, the ultimate Conclusion will * Hence, the Student must not confine himself to this passive kind of employment, if he would truly become a Mathematician. 262 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. need confirmation from experience; so that both Physical and Logical Discovery will take place in the course of the same process : / v^re need not, therefore, v^onder, that the two \ are so perpetually confounded. In Mathe- matics, on the other hand, and in great part ij of the discussions relating to Ethics and Ju- risprudence, there being no room for any Physical Discovery whatever, we have only / to make a skilful use of the propositions in our ^ possession, to arrive at every attainable result. The investigation, however, of the latter class of subjects differs in other points also from that of the former. For, setting aside the circumstance of our having, in these, no question as to facts, — no room for observa- tion, — there is also a considerable difference in what may be called, in both instances, the process of Logical investigation ; the Premises on which we proceed being of so different a nature in the two cases. JSilTolher '^^ ^^^^ ^^^ example of Mathematics, the Reasoning. Definitious, which are the principles of our Reasoning, are very few, and the Axioms still fewer; and both are, for the most part, laid down and placed before the student in the outset; the introduction of a new Definition or Axiom, being of comparatively rare occur- rence, at wide intervals, and with a formal statement; besides which, there is no room Chap. II. § 5.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 263 for doubt concerning either. On the other hand, in all Reasonings which regard matters of fact, we introduce, almost at every step, fresh and fresh propositions (to a very great number) which had not been elicited in the course of our Reasoning, but are taken for . granted ; viz, facts and laws of Nature, which ^ are here the principles of our Reasoning, and ( maxims, or '' elements of belief," which answer to the axioms in Mathematics. If, at the opening of a Treatise, for example, on Che- mistry, on Agriculture, on Political Economy, S^c, the author should make, as in Mathe- matics, a formal statement of all the propo- sitions he intended to assume, as granted throughout the whole work, both he and his readers would be astonished at the number; and, of these, many would be only probable, / and there would be much room for doubt as \ to the degree of probability, and for judg- ement, in ascertaining that degree. Moreover, Mathematical axioms are always employed precisely in the same simple form; e, g. the axiom that " things equal to the same are equal to one another," is cited, whenever there is need, in those very words ; . whereas the maxims employed in the other (class of subjects, admit of, and require, con- (tinual modifications in the appHcation of them : e. g. " the stabihty of the laws of 264 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. Nature," which is our constant assumption in inquiries relating to Natural Philosophy, as- sumes many different shapes, and in some of them does not possess the same absolute cer- tainty as in others ; e. g, when, from having always observed a certain sheep ruminating, we infer, that this individual sheep will con- tinue to ruminate, we assume that '' the pro- perty which has hitherto belonged to this sheep will remain unchanged ;" when we infer the same property of all sheep, we assume that '' the property which belongs to this individual belongs to the whole species :" if, on comparing sheep with some other kinds of horned animals, and finding that all agree in ruminating, we infer that '' all horned animals ruminate," we assume that ^^the whole of a genus or class are likely to agree in any point wherein many species of that genus agree ;" or in other words, '' that if one of two pro- perties, ^c. has often been found accompanied by another, and never without it, the former will be universally accompanied by the latter :" now all these are merely different forms of the maxim, that "nature is uniform in her operations," which, it is evident, varies in ex- pression in almost every different case where it is applied, and admits of every degree of evidence, from absolute moral certainty, to ^ mere conjecture. Chap. II. § 5.] DISCOVERY OF TRUTH. 265 The same may be said of an infinite num- ber of principles and maxims appropriated to, and employed in, each particular branch of study. Hence, all such Reasonings are, in comparison of Mathematics, very complex; requiring so much more than that does, be- yond the process of merely deducing the con- clusion Logically from the Premises : so that it is no wonder that the longest Mathematical demonstration should be so much more easily constructed and understood, than a much shorter train of just Reasoning concerning real facts. The former has been aptly com- pared to a long and steep, but even and regular flight of steps, which tries the breath, and the strength, and the perseverance only; while the latter resembles a short, but rugged and uneven, ascent up a precipice, which requires a quick eye, agile limbs, and a firm step ; and in which we have to tread now on this side, now on that — ever considering, as we proceed, whether this or that projection will afford room for our foot, or whether some loose stone may not slide from under us. There are probably as many steps of pure Reasoning in one of the longer of Eu- > clid's demonstrations, as in the whole of an / argumentative treatise on some other subject, occupying perhaps a considerable volume. As for those Ethical and Legal Reasonings 266 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. which were lately mentioned as in some re- spects resembling those of Mathematics, (viz, such as keep clear of all assertions respecting facts) they have this difference ; that not only men are not so completely agreed respecting the maxims and principles of Ethics and Law, but the meaning also of each term cannot be )absolutely, and for ever, fixed by an arbitrary < definition; on the contrary, a great part of ? our labour consists in distinguishing accurately ] the various senses in which men employ each \ term, — ascertaining which is the most pro- per, — and taking care to avoid confounding them together. Chap. III. Of Inference and Proof §1. Since it appears, from what has been said, that universally a man must possess some- thing else besides the Reasoning-faculty, in order to apply that faculty properly to his own purpose, whatever that purpose may be; it may be inquired whether some theory could Chap. III. § 1.] INFERENCE AND PROOF. 267 not be made out, respecting those '' other operations'' and ^'intellectual processes, dis- tinct from Reasoning, which it is necessary for us sometimes to employ in the investiga- tion of truth;"* and whether rules could not be laid down for conducting them. Something has, indeed, been done in this DiAferent Ap. plications of way by more than one writer; and more might Reasoning. probably be accomplished by one who should fiilly comprehend and carefully bear in mind the principles of Logic, properly so called ; but it would hardly be possible to build up anything like a regular Science respecting these matters, such as Logic is, with respect to the theory of Reasoning. It may be use- ful, however, to observe, that these ''other operations" of which we have been speaking, and which are preparatory to the exercise of Reasoning, are of two kinds, according to the nature of the end proposed; for Rea- vX soning comprehends Inferring and Proving ; ^ which are not two different things, but the same thing regarded in two different points '^^" of view : like the road from London to York, and the road from York to London. He •^ who infers,f proves; and he who proves, ^infers; but the word ''infer" fixes the mind * D. Stewart. t I mean, of course, when the word is understood to imply correct Inference. 268 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. ^ first on the Premiss, and then on the Con- clusion; the word ''prove/' on the contrary, leads the mind from the conclusion to the Premiss. Hence, the substantives derived from these words respectively, are often used to express that which, on each occasion, is /last in the mind; Inference being often used to signify the Conclusion (L e. Proposition inferred) and Proof, the Premiss, We say, also, "How do you prove that?" and "What do you infer from that?" which sentences would not be so properly expressed if we were to transpose those verbs. One might, therefore, define Proving, " the assigning of ^ X S a reason or argument for the support of a y ^ given proposition ; " and Inferring, " the de- i^ duction of a Conclusion from given Premises." In the one case our Conclusion is given, (i. e, set before us) and we have to seek for af'gu- ments ; in the other, our Premises are given, and we have to seek for a Conclusion : i, e. to put together our own propositions, and try what will follow from them ; or, to speak more Logically, in the one case, we seek to / refer the Subject of which we would predi- )^ cate something, to a class to which that Pre- ^ ( dicate will (affirmatively or negatively) apply ; j, in the other, we seek to find comprehended, ^ , I in the Subject of which we have predicated "something, some other term to which that Chap. III. § 2.] INFERENCE AND PROOF. 269 Predicate had not been before applied.* Each of these is a definition of Reasoning, §2. / To infer, then, is the business of the Philo- investigator ) and Advo- ) sopher; to prove, of the Advocate ; the former, ^^^^• ( from the great mass of known and admitted \ truths, wishes to ehcit any valuable additional truth whatever, that has been hitherto unper- j ceived ; and perhaps, without knowing, with I certainty, what will be the terms of his Con- clusion. Thus the Mathematician, e. g, seeks to ascertain what is the ratio of circles to each other, or what is the line whose square will be equal to a given circle ; the Advocate, on the v other hand, has a Proposition put before him, which he is to maintain as well as he can : his ) business, therefore, is to find middle terms V / (which is the inventio of Cicero) ; the Philo- / sopher's, to combine and select known facts, or principles, suitably, for gaining from them /Conclusions which, though imphed in the j Premises, were before unperceived : in other V- Words, for making " Logical Discoveries." To put the same thing in another point of view, we may consider all questions as faUing * "Proving" may be compared to the did oi putting away any article into the proper receptacle of goods of .rr that description ; " inferring," to that of bringing out the article when needed. 270 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. under two classes ; viz, " What shall be pre- dicated of a certain Subject;" and which Copula, affirmative or negative, shall connect a certain Subject and Predicate : we inquire, in short, either, 1st, ''What is A?" or, 2d, Is A, B, or is it not?" The former class }of questions belongs to the Philosopher ; the Jatter to the Advocate.* — (See Rhet, Appen- dix G. p. 387.) * The distinction between these two classes of questions is perhaps best illustrated by reference to some case in which our decision of each of the questions involved in some assertion is controverted, by different parties. E, G, Paul says, that the apostles preached *' Christ crucified ; to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks, foolish- ness : " that Jesus, who had suffered an ignominious death, was the Messiah, the Saviour of the World, was a doctrine opposed both by Jews and Gentiles ; though on different grounds, according to their respective prejudices : the Jews, who " sought after a Sign " (i. e. the coming of the Messiah in the clouds to establish a splendid temporal kingdom) were "offended" — "scandalized" — at the doctrine of a suffering Messiah : the Greeks who " sought after Wisdom" {i.e, the mode oi themselves exalting their own nature, without any divine aid) ridiculed the idea of a Heavenly Saviour altogether ; which the Jews admitted. In logical language, the Gentiles could not comprehend the Predicate ; the Jews, denied the Copula. It may be added, that in modern phraseology, the operations of corresponding prejudices are denoted, respectively by the words " paradox " (a " stumbling- block ") and " nonsense ;" (" foolishness ") which are often used, the one, by him who has been accustomed to hold an opposite opinion to what is asserted, the other, by him who has formed no opinion on the subject. Chap. III. § 2.j INFERENCE AND PROOF. 271 Such are the respective preparatory pro- cesses in these two branches of study. They I are widely different ; they arise from, and generate, very different habits of mind ; and ^y require a very different kind of training and precept.* The Pleader, or Controversialist, or, in short, the Rhetorician in general, who is, in his own province, the most skilful, may be but ill-fitted for Philosophical investigation, even where there is no observation wanted : — when the facts are all ready ascertained for him. And again, the ablest Philosopher may make an indifferent disputant ; especially, since the arguments which have led him to the conclusion, and have, with him, the most weight, may not, perhaps, be the most pow- erful in controversy. The commonest fault, however, by far, is to forget the Philosopher W Theologian, and to assume the Advocate, Wproperly. It is therefore of great use to dwell on the distinction between these two branches. As for the bare process of Rea- ^' soning, that is the same in both cases ; but * It is evident that the business of the Advocate and r that of the Judge are in this manner opposed ; the one / being to find arguments for the support of his client's i/ ■y/ cause ; the other, to ascertain the truth. And hence it '"^ is, that those who have excelled the most in the former department, sometimes manifest a deficiency in the latter, I though the subject-matter ^ in which they are conversant, J remains the same. inquiry. ■^ 272 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. the preparatory processes which are requisite, in order to employ Reasoning profitably, these, /We see, branch off into two distinct channels. In each of these, undoubtedly, useful rules may be laid down ; but they should not be confounded together. Bacon has chosen the Philosophical department of Philosophy ; giving rules in his Organon, not only for the conduct of experi- ments to ascertain new facts, but also for the selection and combination of known facts and principles, with a view of obtaining valuable -^Inferences ; and it is probable that a system of isuch rules is what some writers mean (if they (have any distinct meaning) by their proposed '' Logic." Rhetorical lu thc othcr dcpartmcut, precepts have been given by Aristotle and other Rhetorical writers, as a part of their plan. How far these precepts are to be considered as belonging to the present system, — whether I '' method " is to be regarded as a part of < Logic, — whether the matter of Logic is to be ^included in the system, — whether Bacon's is properly to be reckoned a kind of Logic ; all these are merely verbal questions, relating to the extension, not of the Science, but of the 7iame, The bare process of Reasoning, ^. e, deducing a Conclusion from Premises, must ever remain a distinct operation from the ^assumption of Premises, however useful the inquiry. Chap. III. § 3.] INFERENCE AND PROOF. 273 rules may be that have been given, or may- be given, for conducting this latter process, and others connected with it ; and however properly such rules may be subjoined to the precepts of that system to which the name of Logic is applied in the narrowest sense. Such rules as I now allude to may be of eminent service ; but they must always be, as I have before observed, comparatively vague and general, and incapable of being built up into a regular demonstrative theory like that of the Syllogism ; to which theory they bear much the same relation as the I principles and rules of Poetical and Rhetorical ) criticism to those of Grammar; or those of practical Mechanics, to strict Geometry. I find no fault with the extension of a term ; but I would suggest a caution against con- founding together, by means of a common name, things essentially different ; and above all I would deprecate the sophistry of striving to depreciate what is called " the school- v< Logic," by perpetually contrasting it with systems with which it has nothing in com- mon but the name, and whose object is ^ essentially different. §3. It is not a little remarkable that writers, Aristoties Organon and whose expressions tend to confound together, "«con'.. 274 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. by means of a common name, two branches of study which have nothing else in com- mon (as if they were two different plans for attaining one and the same object), have them- selves complained of one of the effects of this confusion, viz. the introduction, early in the career of Academical Education, of a course of Logic ; under which name, they observe, ^^ men now * universally compre- hend the works of Locke, Bacon, ^c." which, as is justly remarked, are unfit for beginners. /Now this would not have happened, if men / had always kept in mind the meaning or ^meanings of each name they used. And it may be added, that, however justly the word ^ Logic may be thus extended, we have no ground for applying to the Aristotelian Logic the remarks above quoted respecting the Ba- conian ; which the ambiguity of the word, if not carefully kept in view, might lead us to do. Grant that Bacon's work is a part of Logic ; it no more follows, from the unfitness of that for learners, that the Elements of the Theory of Reasoning should be withheld from them, than it follows that the elements of Euchd, and common Arithmetic, are unfit for boys, because Newton's Principia, which also bears the title oi Mathematical, is above their grasp. Of two branches of study which * i. e. in the Scotch universities. Chap. IV. § 1.] VERBAL AND REAL QUESTIONS. 275 bear the same name, or even of two parts of the same branch, the one may be suitable to the commencement, the other to the close of the Academical career. At whatever period of that career it may be proper to introduce the study of such as are usually called Metaphysical writers, it ^^^ay be safely asserted, that those who have [had the most experience in the business of ^giving instruction in Logic, properly so called, I as well as in other branches of knowledge, ^prefer and generally pursue the plan of letting I their pupils enter on that study, next in order (after the elements of Mathematics. Chap. IV. Of Verbal and Real Questions, §1. y The ingenious author of the Philosophy of Rhetoric having maintained, or rather as- sumed, that Logic is applicable to Verbal /controversy alone, there may be an advantage (though it has been my aim throughout to " show the application of it to all Reasoning) in pointing out the difference between Verbal T 2 276 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. and Real Questions, and the probable origin of Campbell's mistake ; for to trace any error to its source, will often throw more light on the subject in hand than can be obtained if we rest satisfied with merely detecting and refuting it. Every Question that can arise, is in fact a Question whether a certain Predicate is or is not applicable to a certain subject, or what Predicate is applicable ; * and whatever other account may be given by any writer, of the nature of any matter of doubt or debate, will be found ultimately to resolve itself into Difference this. But somctimcs the Question turns on between a ^ verbal and^a the mcamug aud extent of the terms em- ployed ; sometimes, on the things signified by -Xthem. If it be made to appear, therefore, jthat the opposite sides of a certain Question lay be held by persons not differing in their nnion of the matter in hand, then that Ques- :ion may be pronounced Verbal ; as depend- ing on the different senses in which they >>tespectively employ the terms. If, on the contrary, it appears that they employ the terms in the same sense, but still differ as to the application of one of them to the other, then it may be pronounced that the Question ? is Real, — that they differ as to the opinions they hold of the things in Question. * See Chap. iii. § 2. between a verbal and real question Chap. IV. § 1.] VERBAL AND REAL QUESTIONS. 277 If, for instance, two persons contend whe- ther Augustus deserved to be called a '' great man," then, if it appeared that the one in- cluded, under the term ^' great," disinterested patriotism, and on that ground excluded Au- gustus from the class, as wanting in that quality ; and that the other also gave him no credit for that quahty, but understood no more by the term '^ great," than high intellectual qualities, energy of character, and briUiant actions, it would follow that the parties did not differ in opinion except as to the use of y a term, and that the Question was Verbal. If, again, it appeared that the one did give Augustus credit for such patriotism, as the other denied him, both of them including that idea in the term great, then the Ques- vtion would be Real. Either kind of Question, i it is plain, is to be argued according to Logical {principles ; but the middle terms employed would he different; and for this reason, among others, it is important to distinguish Verbal Vfrom Real controversy. In the former case, e,g, it might be urged with truth, that the • common use of the expression '' great and good " proves that the idea of good is not implied in the ordinary sense of the word great; an argument which could have, of course, no place in deciding the other Ques- tion. 278 ON THE PROVINCE OE REASONING. [Book IV §2. Verbal Qaes. It Is bv HO mcaiis to be supposed that all tions mis- i p • i T Kea" """ V Verbal Questions are trifling and frivolous. It is often of the highest importance to settle cor- rectly the meaning of a word, either according x- to ordinary use, or according to the meaning of any particular writer or class of men : but y when Verbal Questions are mistaken for Real, much confusion of thought and unprofitable wrangling will be generally the result. Nor is it always so easy and simple a task, as might at first sight appear, to distinguish them from each other : for several objects to which one V common name is applied will often have many points of difference, and yet that name may perhaps be applied to them all in the same sense, and may be fairly regarded as the genus they come under, if it appear that they all agree in what is designated by that name, and that the differences between them are in points not essential to the character of the genus. A cow and a horse differ in many respects, but agree in all that is implied by the term '' quadruped," which is therefore / appHcable to both in the same sense.'^ So * Yet the charge of equivocation is sometimes unjustly brought against a writer, in consequence of a gratuitous assumption of our own. An Eastern writer, e.g. may be speaking of " beasts of burden ; " and the reader may Chap. IV. § 2.] VERBAL AND REAL QUESTIONS. 279 also the houses of the ancients differed in many respects from ours, and their ships still more ; yet no one would contend that the terms '' house " and " ship/' as apphed to both, are ambiguous, or that oIkos might not fairly be rendered house, and vavs ship; be- cause the essential characteristic of a house is, not its being of this or that form or materials, but its being a dwelHng for men ; these therefore would be called two different kinds of houses ; and consequently the term *' house " would be applied to each, without any equivocation, in the same sense : and so in the other instances. On the other hand, two or more things may bear the same name, and may also have a resemblance in many points, and may from that resemblance have come to bear the same name, and yet if the circumstance which is essential to each be "^ wanting in the other, the term may be pro- nounced ambiguous. E, G, The word '' Plan- tain" is the name of a common herb in chance to have the idea occur to his mind of Horses and Mules ; he thence takes for granted that these were meant ; and if it afterwards come out that it was Camels, he perhaps complains of the writer for misleading him by not expressly mentioning the species ; saying, " I could not know that he meant Camels." He did not mean Camels, in particular ; he meant, as he said, " beasts of burden;" and Camels are such, as well as Horses and Mules. He is not accountable for your suppositions. 280 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. Europe, and of an Indian fruit-tree : both are vegetables; yet the term is ambiguous, because it does not denote them so far forth as theij agree. Again, the word " Priest " is apphed to the Ministers of the Jewish and of the Pagan rehgions, and also to those of the Christian ; and doubtless the term is so used in consequence of their being both v/ ministers (in some sort) of rehgion. Nor would every difference that might be found between the Priests of different religions con- stitute the term ambiguous, provided such differences were non-essential to the idea suggested by the word Priest ; as e, g, the Jewish Priest served the true God, and the Pagan, false Gods : this is a most important difference, but does not constitute the term ambiguous, because neither of these circum- stances is implied and suggested by the term 'Upem; which accordingly was applied both to Jewish and Pagan Priests. But the term 'lepevs does seem to have implied the office of offering sacrifice, atoning for the sins of the people, and acting as mediator between man and the object of his worship ; and ac- cordingly that term is never applied to any one under the Christian system, except to the ONE great Mediator. The Christian ministers not having that office which was imphed as essential in the term 'Upevs, were Chap. IV. § 2.] VERBAL AND REAL QUESTIONS. 281 never called by that name, but by that of TTpecr^vrepos,* It may be concluded, there- fore, that the term Priest is ambiguous, as cor- responding to the terms 'l6p€V9 and irpeafivTepos respectively, notwithstanding that there are points in which these two agree. These therefore should be reckoned, not two different kinds of Priests, but Priests in two different senses ; since (to adopt the phraseology of Aristotle) the definition of them, so far forth as they are Priests, would be different. , It is evidently of much importance to keep ' in mind the above distinctions, in order to avoid, on the one hand, stigmatizing as Verbal controversies, what in reahty are not such, merely because the Question turns on the applicability of a certain Predicate to a certain X subject; or, on the other hand, falling into the K opposite error of mistaking words for things, .'s and judging of men's agreement or disagree- \ment in opinion in every case, merely from ^ their agreement or disagreement in the terms Employed. * From which our word Priest is derived, but which (it is remarkable) is never translated " Priest " in our version of the Scriptures, but " Elder." 282 [Book IV, Chap. V. Of Realism. §1. Nothing has a greater tendency to lead to the mistake just noticed, and thus to produce undetected Verbal Questions and fruitless Lo- gomachy, than the prevalence of the notion of the Realists,* that genus and species are some "reaTTHiNGS, existing independently of our conceptions and expressions ; and that, as in the case of singular terms there is some real individual corresponding to each, so in common terras, also, there is something cor- responding to each, which is the object of our thoughts when we employ any such term.f * It is well known what a long and furious controversy long existed in all the universities of Europe between the sects of the Realists and the Nominalists ; the heat of which was allayed by the Reformation, which withdrew men's attention to a more important question. t A doctrine commonly, but falsely attributed to Aristotle, who expressly contradicts it. He calls in- dividuals " primary Substances" (Trpwrai ovonai). Genus and Species '* secondary," as not denoting (role n) a " really-existing thing," ITaca U ovcrla hKei Toh tl (TffiJiaiveiv. 'Ettc fxev ovv riov TrpojTioy ovctimv avan^KT- ftr]TriTOV Ka\ aXrjQeQ eariv, on to^e tl ari^aiveL' aro^ov yap KoX tv cipidfiu) TO crjXovfJevov (.(Ttiv. 'Etti le Toiy hevr'piov rwffiojvy ^AINETAI jjEv ofjioiojij rw (Tj^fjjjLciTi rijQ irpoaqyopiaQ Chap. V. § 1.] REALISM. 283 There is one circumstance which ought to be noticed, as having probably contributed not a little to foster this error : I mean the peculiar technical sense of the word '' Species" when Technical , ^ sense of Spe- applied to organized Beings, It has been laid ^'f ,S*t!i down in the course of this work, that when Eg?'* several individuals are observed to resemble each other in some point, a common name may be assigned to them denoting that point, — applying to all or any of them so far forth as respects that common attribute, — and distinguishing them from all others; as, e, g, the several individual buildings, which, however different in other respects, agree in being constructed for men's dwelling, are called by the common name of '^ House:" and it was added, that as we select at pleasure the circumstance that we choose to al?stract, we may thus refer the same individual to several different species, according as it suits our purpose ; and the same in respect of the reference of Species to Genus : whence it i^seems plainly to follow that Genus and Spe- (cies are no real things existing independent /of our thoughts, but are creatures of our ^wn minds. Yet in the case of Species of organized Beings, it seems at first sight as role TL ar]^aiVEiv, orav eirry, avdpioiroQ , r) ^wov" OY MHN FE AAH0ES' aXXa fjiaXKoy iroiov rt ar)fiaivu' k. t. X. Aristotle, Categ. § 3. 284 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. if this rule did not hold good; but that the Species to which each individual belongs^ could not be in any degree arbitrarily fixed by us, but must be something real, unalterable, and independent of our thoughts. Caesar or Socrates, for instance, it may be said, must belong to the Species Man, and can belong to no other ; and the like, with any individual Brute, or Plant. On the other hand, if any one utters such a proposition as ^^ Argus was a mastiff," to what head of Predicables would this Predicate be referred ? Surely our logi- cal principles would lead us to answer, that it is the Species; since it could hardly be called an Accident, and is manifestly no other Predicable. And yet every Naturalist would at once pronounce that Mastiff is no distinct Species, but only a variety of the Species Dog. This however does not satisfy our inquiry as to the head of Predicables to which it is to be referred. The solution of the difficulty is to be found in the consideration of the peculiar technical sense of the word '"Species" when applied to Species dis- organized Beings : in which case it is always tinguished by..-^, fVom varTet ^PP"^^ (whcu wc arc speakmg strictly, as naturalists) to such individuals as are sup- posed to be descended from a common stock, or which might have so descended ; viz, which resemble one another (to use M. Cuvier^s Chap. V.§1.] REALISM. 285 expression) as much as those of the same stock do. Now this being a point on which all (not merely Naturalists) are agreed, and since it is a matter of fact, that such and such in- Questions of fact and dividuals are, or are not, thus connected, it Sg^mJIft. follows, that every question whether a cer- tain individual Animal or Plant belongs to a certain Species or not, is a question not of mere arrangement, but of fact. But in the case of questions respecting Genus it is other- wise. If, e.g. two Naturalists differed, in the one placing (as Linnaeus) all the Species of Bee under one Genus, which the other sub- divided (as later writers have done) into se- veral genera, it would be evident that there was no question of fact debated between them, and that it was only to be considered which was the more convenient arrangement ; if, on the other hand, it were disputed whether the African and the Asiatic Elephant are distinct Species, or merely Varieties, it would be equally manifest that the question is one of fact; since both would allow that if they were descended (or might have descended) from the same stock, they were of the same Species, and if otherwise, of two : this is the fact, which they endeavour to ascertain, by such indications as are to be found. For it is to be further observed, that this fact being one which cannot be directly 286 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. known, the consequence is, that the marks by which any Species of Animal or Plant is knowriy are not the very Differentia which constitutes that Species. Now, in the case of unorganized beings, these two coincide ; the Mark by uiarks by which a diamond, e, p*. is distin- which a •^ ^ O kS^^J!f!.ot guished from other minerals, being the very Differentia. Differentia that constitutes the Species Dia- mond. And the same is the case in the Genera of organized beings likewise : the Linnaean Genus " felis," e. g, (when consi- dered as a Species, i. e, as falling under some more comprehensive class) is distinguished from others under the same Order, by those very marks which constitute its Differentia. But in the Infimse Species (according to the view of a Naturahst) of plants and animals, this, as has been said, is not the case ; since here the Differentia which constitutes each Species includes in it a circumstance which cannot be directly ascertained (viz. the being sprung from the same stock), but which we conjecture from circumstances of resemblance; so that the ?narks by which a Species is known, are not in truth the whole of the Differentia itself, but indications of the existence of that Differentia; viz. indications of descent from a common stock.* * There are few, and but a few, other Species to whicli the same observations will in a great degree apply : I mean Chap.V. §1.] REALISM. 287 / Hence it is that Species, in the case of or- ganized beings, appears to be something real, and independent of our thoughts and lan- guage ; and hence, naturally enough, the same notions have been often extended to the Ge- [ nera also, and to Species of other things : so { that men have an idea of each individual of every description truli/ belonging to some one Species and no other ; and each Species in like manner to some one Genus ; vv^hether we happen to be right or not in the ones to which we refer them. Few, if any indeed, in the present day avow and maintain this doctrine ; but those who are not especially on their guard, are perpetually sliding into it unawares. Nothing so much conduces to this as the transferred and secondary use of the words "same,"* "one and the same," " identical," Ambiguity of . , ^ - •1-1 ^^^ words ^c. when it is not clearly perceived and care- ;;same» fiiUy borne in mind, that they are employed in which the Differentia which constitutes the Species, and the mark by which the Species is known, are not the same : e. g. " Murder : " the Differentia of which is that it be committed "with malice aforethought;" this cannot be directly ascertained ; and tlierefore we distinguish murder from any other homicide by circumstances of preparation, ^•c, which are not in reality the Differentia, but indica- tions of the Differentia ; i. e. grounds for concluding that the malice did exist. * See Appendix, No. I. art. Same. ■one," &c. 288 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. in a secondary sense, and that more frequently even than in the primary. Suppose, e, g. a thousand persons are thinking of the Sun, it is evident it is one and the same individual object on which all these minds are employed ; so far all is clear : but suppose all these persons are thinking of a Triangle ; — not any individual triangle, but Triangle in general ; — and considering, per- haps, the equality of its angles to two right angles ; it would seem as if, in this case also, their minds were all employed on '' one and the same" object : and this object of their thoughts, it may be said, cannot be the mere j^orc? triangle, but that which is meant by it ; nor again, can it be everything that the word will apply to, for they are not thinking of tri- angles, but of one thing. Those who do not acknowledge that this " one thing" has an ex- istence independent of the human mind, are in general content to tell us, by way of ex- i planation, that the object of their thoughts ^ is the abstract " idea" of a triangle ; * an \ explanation which satisfies, or at least silences many; though it may be doubted whether they very clearly understand what sort of a thing an '' idea" is, which may thus exist in a * Conceptualists is a name sometimes applied to those who adopt this explanation ; to which class Locke is referred. Chap.v.§i.] realism. 289 thousand different minds at once, and yet be '' one and the same." The fact is, that " unity" and '' sameness" are in such cases employed, not in the pri- mary sense, but to denote perfect similarity. When we say that ten thousand different persons have all ^' one and the same" Idea in their minds, or are all of " one and the same" Opinion, we mean no more than that they are all thinking exactly alike ; when we say that they are all in the " same" posture, we mean that they are all placed alike ; and so also they are said all to have the '' same'* disease, when they are all diseased alike. One instance of the confusion of thought and endless logomachy which may spring from inattention to this ambiguity of the words " same," Spc, is afforded by the con- troversy arising out of a sermon of Dr. King (Archbishop of Dublin), published about a century ago. He remarked (without express- ing himself perhaps with so much guarded precision as the vehemence of his opponents rendered needful) that '' the attributes of the Deity (viz. Wisdom, Justice, S^c.) are not to be regarded as the same with those human qua- lifies which bear the same names, but are called so by resemblance and analogy only." For this he was decried by Bishop Berkeley and a host of other objectors, down to the u 290 ON THE PROVINCE X)F REASONING. [Book IV. present time, as an Atheist, or little better. If the divine attributes, they urged, are not precisely the same in kind (though superior in degree) with the human qualities which bear the same name, we cannot imitate the Deity as the Scriptures require ; — we cannot know on what principles we shall be judged ; — we cannot be sure that God exists at all ; with a great deal more to the same purpose ; all of which would have been perceived to be entirely needless, had the authors but recol- lected to ascertain the meaning of the prin- ( cipal word employed. For, 1st, When any / two persons (or other objects) are said to J have the " same " quality, accident, ^c, what ( we predicate of them is evidently a certain (^resemblance, and nothing else. One man, e, g. does not feel another's sickness ; but they are said to have the '' same" disease, if they are precisely similar in respect of their ailments : and so also they are said to have the same complexion, if the hue and texture of their skins be alike. 2dly, Such quahties y/ as are entirely relative, — which consist in the relation borne by the subject to certain other things, — in these, it is manifest, the only re- I \ semblance that can exist, is, resemblance of ^ ^ relations, i. e, ANALOGY. Courage, e, g, ^ consists in the relation in which one stands (eV T(f> exci'V irwq irpoq, Arist.) towards dangers ; Chap. V.§1.] REALISM. 291 Temperance or Intemperance, towards bodily- pleasures, ^c. When it is said, therefore, of two courageous men, that they have both the same quality, the only meaning this expression can have, is, that they are, so far, completely analogous in their characters ; — having similar ratios to certain similar objects. In short, as, r in all qualities, sameness can mean only strict ( resemblance, so, in those which are of a rela- tive nature, resemblance can mean only ana- ^ rlogy. Thus it appears, that what Dr. King has been so vehemently censured for asserting respecting the Deity, is literally true even with respect to men themselves ; viz, that it ( is only by Analogy that two persons can be I said to possess the same virtue, or other such \ quality. 3dly, But what he means is plainly, that this analogy is far less exact and complete in the case of a comparison between the Deity and his creatures, than between one man and another ; which surely no one ^ would venture to deny. But the doctrine against which the attacks have been directed, is self-evident, the moment we consider the ** meaning of the term employed.* In the Introduction and Notes to the last edition of Archbishop King's Discourse, I * See Dr. Copleston's excellent Analysis and Defence Archbishop Kin^ Four Discourses." ^ of Archbishop King's principles, in the Notes to his u 2 292 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. have considered the matters in debate more fully ; but this shght notice of them has been introduced in this place, as closely connected with the present subject. §2. Origin of the The origin of this secondary sense of the ambi£;iiity of n r •'8a.mv'&c. ^Q^(]g^ "same," *' one/' "identical," ^c, (an attention to which would clear away an in- calculable mass of confused Reasoning and Logomachy,) is easily to be traced to the use of Language and of other signs, for the pur- pose of mutual communication. If any one utters the " one single" word " triangle," and gives " one single" definition of it ; each of the persons who hear him forms a certain ^ notion in his own mind, not differing in any respect from that of each of the rest; they are said therefore to have all " one and the same" notion, because, resulting from, and / corresponding with, (that which is, in the \ primary sense) " one and the same" expres- ( sion ; and there is said to be " one single" ndea of every triangle (considered merely as a triangle) because one single name or defini- tion is equally applicable to each. In like manner, all the coins struck by the same sin- gle die, are said to have " one and the same" j& impression, merely because the (numerically) one description which suits one of these coins. Chap. V. § 2.] REALISM. 293 will equally suit any other that is exactly like it. It is not intended to recommend the disuse of the words '' same," " identical/' Sfc, in this transferred sense ; which, if it were desirahle would be utterly impracticable ; but merely a steady attention to the ambiguity thus introduced, and watchfulness against the errors thence arising.* The difficulties and perplexities which have involved the ques- tions respecting personal identity, among others, may be traced principally to the neg- lect of this caution.f But a full consideration * It is with words as with money. Those who know the value of it best, are not therefore the least liberal. We may lend readily and largely; and though this be done quietly and without ostentation, there is no harm in keep- ing an exact account in our private memorandum-book of the sums, the persons, and the occasions on which they were lent. It may be, we shall want them again for our own use; or they may be employed by the borrower for a wrong purpose ; or they may have been so long in his possession that he begins to look upon them as his own. In either of which cases it is allowable, and even right, to call them in. " Logic Vindicated." Oxford, 1809. f I mean that many writers have sought an explanation of the primary sense of identity (viz. personal) by looking to the secondary. Any grown man, e.g. is, in the primary sense, the same person he was when a child : this sameness /; is, I conceive, a simple notion, which it is vain to attempt 1 explaining by any other more simple ; but when philo- l sophers seek to gain a clearer notion of it by looking to /the cases in which sameness is predicated in another sense, ^ viz. similarity, such as exists between several individuals 294 ON THE PROVINCE OF REASONING. [Book IV. of that question would be unsuitable to the subject of this work. denoted by a common name, (as when we say that there are growing on Lebanon some of the same trees with which the Temple was built, meaning cedars of that species) this is surely as idle as if we were to attempt explaining the primary sense, e,g, of " rage," as it exists in the human mind, by directing our attention to the ** rage" of the sea. Whatever personal identity does consist in, it is plain that it has nothing to do with similarity ; since every one would be ready to say, " When I WAS a child, I thought as a child,— I spake as a child, — I understood as a child ; but when I became a man, I put away childish things." APPENDIX APPENDIX, LISI OF WORDS EXPLAINED IN THE FOLLOWING APPEND!} Argument. Authority. Can. — See May. Hence. — See Reason, Why. Identical. — See One, Same. Sin. Therefore.— «yee Why. Capable. — See Possi- Same. Truth. ble, Impossible,Ne- cessary. Case. Cause. — See Reason, Impossibility. Indifference. Law. May. — See Must. Why. Whence.— ^^e Why. Why. Certain. Necessary. Old. Value. Church. One. Wealth. Election. Person. Labour. Expect. Experience. Falsehood.— -y^e Truth Possible. Priest. . Reason. Capital. Rent. Wages. Gospel. Regeneration. Profits. No. I. ^ ON CERTAIN TERMS WHICH ARE PECULIARLY LIABLE TO BE USED AMBIGUOUSLY. It has appeared to me desirable to illustrate the import- ance of attending to the ambiguity of terms, by a greater number of instances than could have been conveniently either inserted in the context or introduced in a note, without too much interrupting the course of the discussion of Fallacies. I have purposely selected instances from various subjects, and some from the most important; being convinced that the disregard and contempt with which logical studies are 298 APPENDIX. usually treated, may be traced, in part, to a notion, that the science is incapable of useful application to any matters of real importance, and is merely calculated to afford an exercise of ingenuity on insignificant truisms ; — syllogisms to prove that a horse is an animal, and distinctions of the different senses of " canis" or "gallus;" a mistake which is likely to derive some countenance (however unfairly) from the exclusive employment of such trifling exemplifications. The words and phrases which may be employed as ambiguous middle terms are of course innumerable : but it may be in several respects of service to the learner, to explain the ambiguity of a few of those most frequently occurring in the most important discussions, and whose ^ double meaning has been the most frequently overlooked ; and this, not by entering into an examination of all the senses in which each term is ever employed, but of those only which are the most liable to be confounded together. It is worth observing, that the words whose ambiguity is the most frequently overlooked, and is productive of the greatest amount of confusion of thought and fallacy, are / among the commonest^ and are those of whose meaning the --generality consider there is the least room to doubt. It is indeed from those very circumstances that the danger arises ; words in very common use are both the most liable, from the looseness of ordinary discourse, to slide from one sense into another, and also the least likely to have that / ambiguity suspected. Familiar acquaintance is perpetually \/inistaken for accurate knowledge. It may be necessary here to remark, that inaccuracy not unfrequently occurs in the employment of the very phrase, " such an author uses such a word in this, or that sense," or " means so and so, by this word." We should not use these expressions, (as some have inadvertently done) in AMBIGUOUS TERMS. . 299 reference, necessarily, to the notion which may exist, in the authors mind, of the object in question ; of which the notions conveyed to others by the word may often fall short ; nor again should we regard the sense in which they under- stand him, as necessarily his sense (though it is their s) of the word employed, since they may mistake his meaning ; . but we must consider what sense it is likely he expected / / and intended to convey, to those to whom he addressed \ himself. And a judicious writer will always expect each s^ word to be understood, as nearly as the context will allow, ^ in the sense, or in one of the senses, which use has esta- blished, except so far as he may have given some different explanation. But there are many who, from various causes, frequently fail of conveying the sense they design. It is but fair perhaps to add this warning to my readers ; that one who takes pains to ascertain and explain the sense of the words employed in any discussion, whatever care he may use to show that what he is inquiring after, is, the received sense, is yet almost sure to be charged, by the inaccurate, and the sophistical, with attempting to introduce some new sense of the words in question, in order to serve a purpose. ARGUMENT, in the strict logical sense, has been de- fined in the foregoing treatise ; (Compendium, Book II. Ch. iii. § 1) in that sense it includes (as is there remarked) the Conclusion as well as the Premises : and thus it is, that we say a Syllogism consists of three propositions ; viz. the Conclusion which is proved, as well as those by which it ^is proved. But in ordinary discourse, Argument is very often used for the Premises alone, in contradistinction to the Con- f elusion ; e. g. " the Conclusion which this Argument is intended to establish is so and so." 300 APPENDIX. It is also sometimes employed to denote what is, strictly speaking, a course or series of such Arguments ; when a certain Conclusion is established by Premises, which are themselves, in the same dissertation, proved by other pro- positions, and perhaps those again, by others; the whole of this dissertation is often called an Argument to prove the ultimate conclusion designed to be established ; though in fact it is a train of Arguments. It is in this sense, e. g. that we speak of " Warburton's Argument to prove the divine legation of Moses," §•€. Sometimes also the word is used to denote what may be properly called a Disputation ; i. e. two trains of argument, opposed to each other : as when we say that A and B had a long Argument on such and such a subject ; and that A had the best of the Argument. Doubtless the use of the word in this sense has contributed to foster the notion entertained by many, that Logic is the " art of wrangling," that it makes men contentious, Sfc,: they have heard that it is employed about Arguments ; and hastily conclude that it is confined to cases where there is opposition and contest. It may be worth mentioning in this place, that the various forms of stating an Argument are sometimes spoken of as different kinds of Argument : as when we speak of a Categorical or Hypothetical Argument, or of one in the first or some other figure ; though every logician knows that the same individual Argument may be stated in various figures, S^c. This, no doubt, has contributed to the error of those who speak of the Syllogism as a peculiar kind of Argu- ment ; and of " Syllogistic Reasoning," as a distinct mode of Reasoning, instead of being only a certain form of expressing any argument. AUTHORITY. — This word is sometimes employed in its primary sense when we refer to any one's example. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 301 testimony, or judgment : as when, e. g. we speak of cor- recting a reading in some book, on the Authority of an ancient MS. — giving a statement of some fact, on the Authority of such and such historians, ^-c. In this sense the word answers pretty nearly to the Latin " Auctoritas." Sometimes again it is employed as equivalent to " Po- testas," Power: as when we speak of the Authority of a Magistrate, Sfc, Many instances may be found in which writers have unconsciously slid from one sense of the word to another, so as to blend confusedly in their minds the two ideas. In no case perhaps has this more frequently happened than when we are speaking of the Authority of the Church : in which the ambiguity of the latter word (see the Article Church) comes in aid of that of the former. The Authority (in the primary sense) of the Catholic, i. e. Universal Church, at any particular period, is often appealed to, in support of this or that doctrine or practice: and it is, ^justly, supposed that the opinion of the great body of the Christian World affords a presumption (though only a pre- , sumption) in favour of the correctness of any interpretation of Scripture, or the expediency, at the time, of any cere- mony, regulation, Sfc, On the other hand, each particular Church has Authority in the other sense, rh. Power, over its own members, to enforce anything not contrary to God's Word. But the Catholic or Universal Church, not being one religious com- Slnunity on earth, can have no Authority in the sense of '^ Power ; since, whatever the Romanists may pretend, there - never was a time when the power of the Pope, of a Coun- ^^il, or of any other human Governors, over all Christians, ^' was admitted, or could be proved to have any just claim to be admitted. 302 APPENDIX. Authority again in the sense of Auctoritas may have every degree of weight, from absolute infalUbility, (such as, in reUgious matters, Christians attribute to the Scrip- tures) down to the faintest presumption. See Hawkins on Tradition. Hinds's History of the Early Progress of Christianity y Vol. II. p. 99. Hinds on Inspiration. Errors of Romanism i Chap. iv. And Essay on the Omission of Creedsy S^c. in the New Testament, CAN.— aS'^6? " May." CAPABLE. — /S'e^ *' Possible," "Impossible," and " Necessary." CASE. — Sometimes Grammarians use this word to signify (which is its strict sense) a certain " variation in the writing and utterance of a Noun, denoting the relation in which it stands to some other part of the sentence ;" sometimes to denote that relation itself: whether indicated by the termination, or by a preposition, or by its colloca- tion; and there is hardly any writer on the subject who does not occasionally employ the term in each sense, with- out explaining the ambiguity. Much confusion and frivolous debate has hence resulted. Whoever would see a specimen of this, may find it in the Port Royal Greek Grammar ; in which the Authors insist on giving the Greek language an Ablative case^ with the same termination, however, as the Dative : (though, by the way, they had better have fixed on the Genitive, which oftener answers to the Latin Abla- tive) urging, and with great truth, that if a distinct termi- nation be necessary to constitute a case, many Latin Nouns will be without an Ablative, some without a Genitive or without a Dative, and all Neuters without an Accusative. And they add, that since it is possible, in every instance, AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 303 to render into Greek the Latin Ablative, consequently there must be an Ablative in Greek. If they had known and recollected that in the language of Lapland there are, as we are told, thirteen Cases, they would have hesitated to use an argument which would prove that there must therefore be thirteen Cases in Greek and Latin also ! All this confusion might have been avoided, if it had but been observed that the word " Case " is used in two senses. CAUSE.— .S'^^ " Reason," and "Why." CERTAIN. — This is a word whose ambiguity, together with that of many others of kindred signification (as "may," **can," "must," "possible," Sfc.) has occasioned infinite perplexity in discussions on some of the most important subjects ; such as the freedom of human actions, the divine foreknowledge, ^c. In its primary sense, it is applied (according to its (^ etymology from cernoj to the state of a person's mind ; / denoting any one's full and complete conviction ; and, \ generally, though not always, implying that there is suf- / ficient ground for such conviction. It was thence easily transferred to the truths or events, respecting which this conviction is rationally entertained. And Uncertain (as well as the substantives and adverbs derived from these adjec- tives) follows the same rule. Thus we say, "it is certain that a battle has been fought :" " it is certain that the moon will be full on such a day : " " it is uncertain whether such a one is alive or dead:" "it is uncertain whether it will rain to-morrow :" meaning, in these and in all other cases, that we are certain or uncertain respectively ; not indicating any difference in the character of the events themselves, except in reference to our knowledge respecting them ; for the same thing may be, at the same time, both certain and 304 APPENDIX. uncertain, to different individuals ; e. g. the life or death at a particular time, of any one, is certain, to his friends on the spot ; uncertain or contingent, to those at a distance. From not attending to this circumstance, the words " un- certain" and " contingent" (which is employed nearly in the same sense as uncertain in its secondary meaning) have been considered by many writers* as denoting some quality in the things themselves ; and have thus become involved in endless confusion. " Contingent" is indeed applied to events only, not to persons : but it denotes no quality in the events themselves ; only, as has been said, the relation in which they stand to a person who has no complete knowledge respecting them. It is from overlooking this principle, obvious as it is when once distinctly stated, that Chance or Fortune has come to be regarded as a real agent, and to have been, by the ancients, personified as a Ooddess, and represented by statues. CHURCH is sometimes employed to signify the Church, i. e. the Universal or Catholic Church, — the Society com- prehending in it all Christians, who are " Members one of another," and who compose the Body, of which Christ is the Head; which, collectively taken, has no visible supreme Head or earthly governor, either individual, or council; and which is one, only in reference to its One invisible Governor and Paraclete, the Spirit of Christ, dwelling in it. See Hinds's His tori/ of the Rise of * Among others, Archbishop King, in his discourse on Predestination, has fallen into this error ; as is explained in the Notes and the Appendix to my edition of that work. It may be allowable to mention in this place, that I have been repre- sented as coinciding with him as to the point in question, in a note to Mr. Davison's work on Prophecy ; through a mistake, which the author candidly acknowledged, and promised to rectify. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 305 Christianity f and Blanco White's Preservative against Popery. Sometimes again it is employed to signify a Church ; i. e, any one branch of that general Society ; having governors on earth, and existing as a community possessing authority over its own members ; in which sense we read of the " Seven Churches in Asia;" — of Paul's having " the care of all the Churches," Sfc, This ambiguity has often greatly favoured the cause of the Church of Rome; which being admitted by her opponents to be a Church, i. e. a branch, though an unsound and corrupt one, of the universal Church I of Christ, is thence assumed to be the Church, — the Society )in which all men are called upon to enrol themselves. — See the article " Truth," The Church is also not unfrequently used to denote the Clergy f in contradistinction to the Laity ; as, when we speak of any one's being educated for the Church, meaning, " for the Ministry." Some would perhaps add that it is in this sense we speak of the endowments of the Church ; since the immediate emolument of these is received by clergy- men. But if it be considered that they receive it in the capacity of public instructors and spiritual pastors, these endowments may fairly be regarded as belonging, in a cer- tain sense, to the whole body, for whose benefit they are, in this way, calculated ; in the same manner as we consider, e. g. the endowment of a professorship in a university, as a benefaction, not to the professors alone, but to the uni- versity at large. ELECTION.— This is one of the terms which is often to all practical purposes ambiguous, when not employed, strictly speaking, in two different senses, but with dif- ferent applications, according to that which is understood in conjunction with it. — See Book II L § 10. See also X 306 APPENDIX. Essays on some of the Difficulties y S^c. Essay III. "On Election." EXPECT. — This word is liable to an ambiguity, which may sometimes lead, in conjunction with other causes, to a practical bad effect. It is sometimes used in the sense of " anticipate " — " calculate on," S^c. (fXiriZw) in short, "consider ^% probable f sometimes for "require, or demand as reasonable," — "consider as right y' {a^Lio.) Thus, I may fairly " expect" (a^tw) that one who has received kindness from me, should protect me in distress ; yet I may have reason to expect {l\'rriZ,uv) that he will not : " England expects every man to do his duty;" but it would be chimerical to expect, i. e. anticipate, a universal perfor- mance of duty. Hence, when men of great revenues, whether civil or ecclesiastical, live in the splendor and sensuality of Sardanapalus, they are apt to plead that this is expected of them ; which is true, in the sense that such conduct is anticipated as probable; not true, as implying that it is required or approved. Thus also, because it would be romantic to expect (i. e. calculate upon) in public men a primary attention to the public good, or in men in general an adherence to the rule of doing as you would be done by, many are apt to flatter themselves that they cannot reasonably be expected (i. e. fairly called upon) to act on such principles. What may reasonably be expected (in one sense of ihe word) must be, precisely the practice of the majority; since it is the majority of instances that constitutes probability : what may reasonably be expected (in the other sense) is something much beyond the practice of the generahty; as long at least as it shall be true that "narrow is the way that leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 307 EXPERIENCE. — This word, in its strict sense, applies to what has occurred within a person's own knowledge. Experience, in this sense, of course, relates to the past alone. Thus it is that a man knows by experience what sufferings he has undergone in some disease, or what height the tide reached at a certain time and place. More frequently the word is used to denote that Judg- ment which is derived from experience in the primary sense, by reasoning from that, in combination with other data. Thus, a man may assert, on the ground of Expe- rience, that he was cured of a disorder by such a medi- cine — that that medicine is, generally, beneficial in that disorder; — that the tide may always be expected, under such circumstances, to rise to such a height. Strictly speaking, none of these can be known by Experience, but Care conclusions derived from Experience. It is in this ( sense only that Experience can be applied to the future , or, / which comes to the same thing, to any general fact ; as, S'e^ « May." NECESSARY. — This word is used as the contrary to " impossible " in all its senses, and is of course liable to a corresponding ambiguity. Thus it is '' mathematically Necessary " that two sides of a triangle should be greater than the third ; there is a " physical Necessity " for the fall of a stone; and a "moral Necessity" that a Being of a certain character should act, when left perfectly free, conformably to that character ; i. e. we are sure he will act so; though of course it is in his power to act otherwise; AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 321 else there would be no moral agency.* This ambiguity is employed sophistically to justify immoral conduct ; since no one is responsible for anything done under " necessity," — L e. physical necessity ; as when a man is dragged any- where by external force, or falls down from being too weak to stand; and then the same excuse is fallaciously extended to " moral necessity " also. There are likewise numberless different applications of the word " necessary " (as well as of those derived from it) in which there is a practical ambiguity, from the diffe- rence of the things understood in conjunction with it : e, g. food is " necessary ;" i?/^. — to life : great wealth is " ne- cessary " — to the gratification of a man of luxurious habits ; the violation of moral duty is in many cases " necessary " — for the attainment of certain worldly objects ; the renuncia- tion of such objects, and subjugation of the desires is " ne- cessary " — to the attainment of the Gospel-promises, ^c. And thus it is that " necessity " has come to be ** the tyrant's plea ;" for as no one is at all responsible for what is a matter of physical necessity, — what he has no power to avoid, — so, a degi'ee of allowance is made for a man's doing what he has power to avoid, when it appears to be the least of two evils ; as, e. g. when a man who is famishing takes the first food he meets with, as "necessary" to support life, or throws over goods in a storm, when it is "necessary," in order to save the ship. But if the plea of necessity be admitted without inquiring Jbr what the act in question is necessary, anything whatever may be thus vindicated ; since no one commits any crime which is not, in his view, " necessary " to the attainment of some sup- posed advantage or gratification. The confusion of thought is further increased by the employment on improper occasions of the phrase '' abso- * See the article " Impossibility j" note. Y 322 APPENDIX. lutely necessary ; " which, strictly speaking, denotes a case in which there is no possible alternative. It is necessary for a man's safety, that he should remain in a house which he cannot quit without incurring danger : it is absolutely, or simply^ necessary that he should remain there, if he is closely imprisoned in it. I have treated more fully on this fruitful source of so- phistry in the Appendix (No. I.) to King's "Discourse on Predestination." In the course of it, I suggested an ety- mology of the word, which I have reason to think is not correct ; but it should be observed, that this makes no difference in the reasoning, which is not in any degree founded on that etymology; nor have I, as some have represented, attempted to introduce any new or unusual sense of the word, but have all along appealed to common use, — the only right standard, — and merely pointed out the senses in which each word has actually been employed. See the introduction to this Appendix. OLD. — This word, in its strict and primary sense, de- notes the length of time that any object has existed ; and many are not aware that they are accustomed to use it in any other. It is, however, very frequently employed instead of " Ancient," to denote distance of time. The same transition seems to have taken place in Latin. Horace says of Lucilius, who was one of the most ancient Roman authors, but who did not live to be old — " quo fit ut omnis Votiva pateat veluti descripta tabella Vita Senis." The present is a remarkable instance of the influence of an ambiguous word over the thoughts even of those who are not ignorant of the ambiguity, but are not carefully on AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 323 the watch against its effects; the impressions and ideas associated by habit with the word when used in one sense, being always apt to obtrude themselves unawares when it is employed in another sense, and thus to affect our rea- sonings : e. g, " Old times," — " the Old World," Sfc, are expressions in frequent use, and which, oftener than not, produce imperceptibly the associated impression of the superior wisdom resulting from experience, which, as a general rule, we attribute to Old men. Yet no one is really ignorant that the world is older now than ever it was ; and that the instruction to be derived from observa- tions on the past (which is the advantage that Old persons possess) must be greater, supposing other things equal, to every successive generation : and Bacon's remark to this purpose appears, as soon as distinctly stated, a mere truism ; yet few, perhaps, that he made, are more important. There is always a tendency to appeal with the same kind of defe- rence, to the authority of " Old times," as of aged men. It should be kept in mind, however, that ancient customs , institutions, Sfc, when they still exist , may be literally called Old ; and have this advantage attending them, that their effects may be estimated from long experience ; whereas we cannot be sure, respecting any recently-esta- blished Law or System, whether it may not produce in time some effects which were not originally contemplated. ONE — is sometimes employed to denote strict and pro- per numerical Unity, sometimes, close Resemblance ; — correspondence with one single description. — See " Same." " Facies non omnibus UNA, Nee diversa tamen ; qualem deeet esse sororum." Ov. Meiam. b. ii. It is in the secondary or improper, not the primary and proper sense of this word, that men are exhorted to "be y2 324 APPENDIX. of one mind ; " i. e, to agree in their faith, pursuits, mutual affections, S^c. It is also in this sense that two guineas, e, g. struck from a wedge of uniform fineness, are said to be " of one and the same form and weight," and also, " of one and the same substance." In this secondary or improper sense also, a child is said to be ** of one and the same (bodily) substance with its mother;" or, simply "of the substance of its mother : " for these two pieces of money, and two human Beings, are numerically distinct. It is evidently most important to keep steadily in view, and to explain on proper occasions, these different uses of the word ; lest men should insensibly slide into error on the most important of all subjects, by applying, in the secondary sense, expressions which ought to be understood in the primary and proper. — See " Person." PERSON,* in its ordinary use at present, invariably implies a numerically distinct substance. Each man is one Person, and can be but one. It has also a peculiar theolo- gical sense, in which we speak of the " three Persons" of the blessed Trinity. It was probably thus employed by our Divines as a literal, or perhaps etymological, rendering of the Latin word " Persona." I am inclined to think, however, from the language of Wallis (the Mathematician and Logician) in the following extract, as well as from that of some other of our older writers, that the English word Person was formerly not so strictly confined as now, to the sense it bears in common conversation among us. " That which makes these expressions" (viz. respecting the Trinity) "seem harsh to some of these men, is because they have used themselves to fansie that notion only of the word Person, * Most of the following observations will apply to the word " Per- sonality." AMBICxUOUS TERMS. 325 according to which three men are accounted to be three persons, and these three persons to be three men. But he may consider that there is another notion of the word Person, and in common use too, wherein the same man may be said to sustain divers persons, and those persons to be the same man : that is, the same man as sustaining divers capacities. As was said but now of TuUy, Tres Personas Unus sustineo; meam, adversarii, judicis. And then it will seem no more harsh to say. The three Persons, Fa- ther, Son, and Holy Ghost, are One God, than to say, God the Creatour, God the Redeemer, and God the Sanctifier, are one God it is much the same thing whether of the two forms we use." — Letters on the Trinity^ p. 63. " The word Person (persona) is originally a Latin word, and doth not properly signify a Man, (so that another person must needs imply another man) for then the word Homo would have served, and they needed not have taken in the word Persona; but rather, one so circumstantiated. And the same Man, if considered in other circumstances (considerably different) is reputed another per- son. And that this is the true notion of the word Person, appears by those noted phrases, personam induere, joersonam deponere, personam agere, and many the like in approved Latin authours. Thus the same man may at once sustain the Person, of a King and a Father, if he be invested both with regal and paternal authority. Now because the King and the Father are for the most part not only different persons but different men also, (and the like in other cases) hence it comes to pass that another Person is sometimes supposed to imply another man ; but not always, nor is that the proper sense of the word. It is Englished in our dictionaries by the state, quality or condition rvherehy one man differs from another ; and so, as the condition alters, the Person alters, though the man be the same. " The hinge of the controversy, is, that notion concerning the three somewhats, which the Fathers (who first used it) did intend to design by the name Person ; so that we are not from the word Person to determine what was that Notion; but from that Notion which they would express, to determine in what sense the word 326 APPENDIX. Person is here used," ^c, ^c. — Letter V. in Answer to theJrian's Vindication* What was precisely the notion which these Latin Fathers intended to convey, and how far it approached the classical signification of the word " Persona," it may not be easy to determine. But we must presume that they did not intend to employ it in what is, now, the ordinary sense of the word Person; both because '^Persona" never, I believe, bore that sense in pure Latinity, and also because it is evident that, in that sense, "three divine Persons" would have been exactly equivalent to "three Gods;" a meaning which the orthodox always disavowed. It is probable that they had nearly the same view with which the Greek theologians adopted the word Hypostasis ; which seems calculated to express " that which stands under fi. e. is the Subject of) Attributes." They meant, it may be presumed, to guard against the suspicion of teaching, on the one hand, that there are three Gods, or three Parts of the one God; or, on the other hand, that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are no more than three Names, all, of the same sig- nification; and they employed accordingly a term which might serve to denote, that, (though divine Attributes belong to all and each of these, yet) there are Attributes * Dr. Wallis's theological works, considering his general celebrity, are wonderfully little known. He seems to have been, in his day, one of the ablest Defenders of the Church's doctrine, against the Arians and Socinians of that period. Of course he incurred the censure, not only of them, but of all who, though not professedly Arian, gave such an expo- sition of the doctrine as amounts virtually to Tritheism. I beg to be understood however as not demanding an implicit deference for his, or for any other human authority, however eminent. We are taught to "call no man Master, on earth." But the reference to Dr. Wallis may serve both to show the use of the word in his days, and to correct the notion, should any have entertained it, that the views of the subject here taken arc, in our Church, anything novel. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 327 of each, respectively, which are not so strictly applicable to either of the others, as such; as when, for instance, the Son is called especially the " Redeemer," and the Holy Spirit, the " Comforter or Paraclete," §'c. The no- tion thus conveyed is indeed very faint, and imperfect; but is perhaps for that very reason, (considering what Man is, and what God is,) the less likely to lead to error. One may convey to a blind man, a notion of seeing, cor- rect as far as it goes, and instructive to him, though very imperfect: if he form a more full and distinct notion of it, his ideas will inevitably be incorrect, — AS'iPe Essay VII. § 5, Second Series.* It is perhaps to be regretted that our Divines, in render- ing the Latin " Persona," used the word Person, whose ordinary sense, in the present day at least, differs in a most important point from the theological sense, and yet is not so remote from it as to preclude all mistake and perplexity. If " Hypostasis," or any other completely foreign term had been used instead, no idea at all would have been conveyed except that of the explanation given ; and thus the danger at least of being misled by a word, would have been avoided. f Our Reformers however did not introduce the word into their Catechism; though it has been (I must think, inju- diciously) employed in some popular expositions of the Catechism, without any explanation, or even allusion to its being used in a peculiar sense. As it is, the danger of being not merely not understood, * It is worth observing, as a striking instance of the little reliance to be placed on etymology as a guide to the meaning of a word, that " Hy- postasis," "Substantia," and "Understanding," so widely different in their sense, correspond in their etymology. f I wish it to be observed, that it is the amUguify of the word Person which renders it objectionable ; not, its being nowhere employed in Scr'qdure in the technical sense of theologians ; for this circumstance is rather an advantage.— See Essay VI. (Second Series) § 4, note. 328 APPENDIX. but y/ii^understood, should be guarded against most sedu- lously, by all who wish not only to keep clear of error, but to inculcate important truth ; by seldom or never employing this ambiguous word without some explanation or caution. For if we employ, without any such care, terms which we must be sensible are likely to mislead, at least the unlearned and the unthinking, we cannot stand acquitted on the plea of not having directly inculcated error. I am persuaded that much heresy, and some infidelity, may be traced in part to the neglect of this caution. It is not wonderful that some should be led to renounce a doctrine, which, through the ambiguity in question, may be represented to them as involving a self-contradiction, or as leading to Tritheism; — that others should insensibly slide into this very error; — or that many more (which I know to be no uncommon case) should, for fear of that error, deliberately, and on principle, keep the doctrine of the Trinity out of their thoughts, as a point of speculative belief, to which they have assented once for all, but which they find it dangerous to dwell on ; though it is in fact the very Faith into which,* by our Lord's appointment, we are baptized. Nor should those who do understand, or at least have once understood, the ambiguity in question, rest satisfied that they are thenceforward safe from all danger in that quarter. It should be remembered that the thoughts are habitually in- fluenced, through the force of association, by the recurrence of the ordinary sense of any word to the mind of those who are not especially on their guard against it. See " Fallacies," §5-t _ * eis TO ovofia, ''into the Name;" not "m the Name." Matt.xxviii. 19. t The correctness of a formal and deliberate Confession of Faith, is not always, of itself, a sufficient safeguard against error in the habitual impressions on the mind. The Romanists flatter themselves that they are safe from Idolatry, because they distinctly acknowledge the truth, AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 329 Nor again is the habitual acknowledgment of One God, of itself a sufficient safeguard; since, from the additional ambiguities of "One" and "Unity," (noticed in the pre- ceding Article) we may gradually fall into the notion of a merely figurative Unity; such as Unity of substance merely, (see the preceding Article) — Unity of purpose, ^ concert of action, ^c. such as is often denoted by the phrase " one mind." See " Same," in this Appendix, and " Disser- tation," Book IV. Chap.v. When however I speak of the necessity of explanations, the reader is requested to keep in mind, that I mean, not explanations of the nature of the Deity, but, of our own use of words. On the one hand we must not content ourselves with merely saying that the whole subject is mysterious and must not be too nicely pried into ; while we neglect to notice the distinction between divine revelations, and human expla- nations of them; — between inquiries into the mysteries of the Divine nature, and into the mysteries arising from the ambiguities of language, and of a language too, adopted by uninspired men. For, whatever Scripture declares, the Christian is bound to receive implicitly, however unable to understand it : but to claim an uninquiring assent to expres- sions of man's framing, (however judiciously framed) without even an attempt to ascertain their meaning, is to fall into one of the worst errors of the Romanists. On the other hand, to require explanations of what God is in Himself, is to attempt what is beyond the reach of the human faculties, and foreign from the apparent design of that "God only is to be served;" viz. with "Latria;" though they allow Adoration, ( " hyperdulia " and "dulia") to the Virgin and other Saints, — to Images, — and to Relics : to which it has been justly replied, that supposing this distinction correct in itself, it would be, in practice, nugatory ; since the mass of the people must soon (as experience proves) lose sight of it entirely in tlieir habitual devotions. 230 APPENDIX. Scripture-revelation;* which seems to be, chiefly if not wholly, to declare to us, (at least to insist on among the essential articles of faith) with a view to our practical benefit, and to the influencing of our feelings and conduct, not so K^ much the intrinsic nature of the Deity, as, what He is rela- tively to us. Scripture teaches us (and our Church-Catechism directs our attention to these points) to " believe in God, who, as the Father, liaih made us and all the World, — as the Son, hath redeemed us and all mankind, — as the Holy Ghost, sanctijieth us, and all the elect people of God."f And this distinction is, as I have said, pointed out in the very form of Baptism. Nothing indeed can be more de- cidedly established by Scripture, — nothing more indistinctly explained (except as far as relates to us) than the doctrine of the Trinity ; % nor are we perhaps capable, with our present faculties, of comprehending it more fully. And as it is wise to reserve for mature age, such in- structions as are unsuitable to a puerile understanding, so, it seems the part of a like wisdom, to abstain, during this our state of childhood, from curious speculations on subjects in which even the ablest of human minds can but " see through a glass, darkly." On these, the Learned can have no ad- vantage over others ; though we are apt to forget that any * In these matters our inquiry, at least our first inquiry, should always be, what is revealed : nor if any one refuses to adopt as an article of faith, this or that exposition, should he be understood as necessarily maintaining its falsity. For we are sure that there must be many truths relative to the Deity, which we have no means of ascertaining : nor does it follow that even every truth which can be ascertained, must be a part of the essential faith of a Christian. t Hawkins's Manual, p. 12. X Compare together, for instance, such passages as the following ; for it is by comparing Scripture with Scripture, not by dweUing on insulated texts, that the Word of God is to be rightly understood : Luke i. 35, and John xiv. 9; John xiv. 16, 18, 26, Matt, xxviii. 19, 20; John xvi. 7, Coloss.ii. 9; Philipp. i. 19, 1 Cor. vi. 19 ; Matt. x. 20, and John xiv. 2.3. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 331 mysterious point inscrutable to Man, as Man, — surpassing the utmost reach of human intellect, — must be such to the learned and to the ignorant, to the wise and to the simple alike ; — that in utter darkness, the strongest sight, and the weakest, are on a level.* With presumptuous speculations, such as I have alluded to, many theologians, even of those who lived near, and in- deed during, the Apostolical times, f seem to have been alike * " Sir, in these matters," (said one of the most eminent of our Re- formers, respecting another mysterious point,) " I am so fearful, that I dare speak no further, yea almost none otherwise, than as the Scripture doth as it were lead me by the hand.'' And surely it is much better thus to comult Scripture, and take it for a guide, than to resort to it merely for confirmations ^ contained in detached texts, of the several parts of some System of Theology, which the student fixes on as reputed orthodox, and which is in fact made the guide which he permits to "lead him by the hand;" while passages culled out from various parts of the Sacred Writings in subserviency to such system, are formed into what may be called an anagram of Scripture : and then, by reference to this system as a standard, each doctrine or discourse is readily pronounced Orthodox, or Socinian, or Arian, or Sabelhan, or Nestorian, ^c. ; and all this, on the ground that the theological scheme which the student has adopted, is supported by Scripture. The materials indeed are the stones of the Temple; but the building constructed with them is a fabric of human contrivance. If instead of this, too common, procedure, students would fairly search the Scriptures with a view not merely to defend their opinions, but to form them, — not merely for argu- ments, but for truth, — keeping human expositions to their own proper purposes, ^See Essay VI. First Series,] and not allowing these to become, practically, a standard, — if in short, they were as honestly desirous to be on the side of Scripture, as they naturally are to have Scripture on their side, how much sounder, as well as more charitable, would their conclusions often be ! t It is important to remember,— what we are very liable to lose sight of— the circumstance, that, not only there arose grievous errors during the time of the Apostles, and consequently such were likely to exist in the times immediately following, but also that when these inspired guides were removed, there was no longer the same infallible authority to decide what was error. In the absence of such a guide, some errors might be received as orthodox, and some sound doctrines be condemned as heterodox. 332 APPENDIX. chargeable, widely as they differed in respect of the par- ticular explanations adopted by each : " Unus utriqiie Error; sed variis illudit partibus." The Gnostics* introduced a theory of i?j)ons, or successive emanations from the divine " Pleroma" or Fullness; one of whom was Christ, and became incarnate in the man Jesus. f The Sabellians are reported to have described Christ as bearing the same relation to the Father, as the illuminating {(jxjjtkttikov) quality, does to the Sun; while the Holy Ghost corresponded to the warming quality : {^aXirbv) or again, the Three as corresponding to the Body, Soul, and Spirit of a man; or again, to Substance, — Thought or Reason, — and Will or Action. The Arians again appear to have introduced in reality three Gods; the Son and The Holy Spirit, created Beings, but with a certain imparted divinity. The Nestorians and Eutychians, gave opposite, but equally fanciful and equally presumptuous explanations of the Incarnation, ^c, Sfc. Nor were those who were accounted orthodox, altogether exempt from the same fault of presumptuous speculation. " Who," says Chrysostom, " was he to whom God said. Let us make man? who but he . . . , . the Son of God?" And Epiphanius, on the same passage, says, " this is the language of God to his Word." Each of these writers, it may be observed, in representing God (under that title) as addressing Himself to the Son as to a distinct Being pre- viously to the birth of Jesus on earth, approaches very closely to the Arian tritheism. And Justin Martyr in a similar * Of these, and several other ancient heretics, we have no accounts but those of their opponents ; which however we may presume to contain more or less of approximation to what was really maintained. t These heretics appear to have split into many different sects, teaching" various modifications of the same absurdities. — See Burton' n Bampton Lectures. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 333 tone, expressly speaks of God as ** One, not in number, but in judgment or designs."* I will not say that such passages as these may not be so interpreted as to exclude both the Arian and every other form of tritheism ; but it is a dangerous thing, to use (and that, not in the heat of declamation, but in a professed exposition) language of such a nature that it is a mere chance whether it may not lead into the most un- scriptural eiTors. If the early writers had not been habitually very incautious in this point, that could hardly have taken place which is recorded respecting the council held at Rimini, (a.d. 360) in which a Confession of Faith was agreed upon, which the Arians soon after boasted of as sanctioning their doctrine, and " the Church," we are told, " was astonished to find itself unexpectedly become Arian."f The fact is, that numberless writers, both of those who were, and who were not, accounted heretics, being dis- pleased, and justly, with one another's explanations of the mode of existence of the Deity, instead of taking warning aright from the errors of their neighbours, sought, each, the remedy, in some other explanation instead, concerning matters unrevealed and inexplicable by man. They found nothing to satisfy a metaphysical curiosity in the brief and indistinct, though decisive, declarations of Scripture, that "God was in Christ, reconciling the World unto Himself;" — that " in Him dwelleth all the Fullness of the Godhead, bodily ;" — that " it is God that worketh in us both to v^dll and to do of his good pleasure ;" — that if we "keep Christ's saying. He dwelleth in us, and we, in Him ;" — that " if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his ;" — and that " the Lord is the Spirit," Sfc.% They wanted something * OvTos yeypafifxevos Oebs, erepos eVri rov ra Tvavra TTOi^aavTos Qeov, dpiOfia Xf'yco, aXX' ov yvcofxij; 8^c. t See Essay VI. (Second Series) § 2. Note b. X Not, as ill our version, " M<7# Spirit ; " 'O Se'Kvpios TO Trvevfxd ea-riv. 334 APPENDIX. more full, and more philosophical, than all this ; and their theology accordingly was " spoiled, through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the World, and not after Christ." Hostile as they were to each other, the grand mistake in principle was common to many of all parties. And in later ages the Schoolmen kept up the same Spirit, and even transmitted it to Protestants. " Theology teaches," (says a passage in a Protestant work) " that there is in God, one Essence, two Processions, three Persons, four Relations, five Notions, and the Circumincession, which the Greeks call Perichoresis." .... What follows is still more to my purpose ; but I cannot bring myself to transcribe any further. ** Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge ?" But the substance of great part of what I have been saying, has been expressed in better language than mine, in a late work which displays no ordinary ability, Mr. Douglas's Error's regarding Religion, " The radical mistake in all these systems, whether heretical or orthodox, which have embroiled mankind in so many scan- dalous disputes, and absurd and pernicious opinions, proceeds from the disposition so natural in man of being wise above what is written. They are not satisfied with believing a plain decla- ration of the Saviour, ' I and the Father are one.' They under- take with the utmost presumption and folly to explain in what manner the Father and the Son are one ; but man might as well attempt to take up the ocean in the hollow of his hand, as endeavour by his narrow understanding, to comprehend the manner of the Divine existence." .... P. 50. "Heresies, however, are not confined to the heterodox. While the Arians and Semi-Arians were corrupting the truth by every subtilty of argument and ingenious perversion of terms, the orthodox all the while were dogmatizing about the Divine AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 335 nature with a profusion of words, which either had no meaning, or were gross mistakes, or inapplicable mataphors when applied to the infinite and spiritual existence of God. And not content with using such arguments against the heretics as generally- produced a new heresy without refuting the former one, as soon as they obtained the power they expelled them from the Roman empire, and sent them with all the zeal which perse- cution confers, and which the orthodox, from their prosperity, had lost, to spread every variety of error amongst the nations of the barbarians. " Orthodoxy was become a very nice affair, from the rigour of its terms, and the perplexity of its creed, and very unlike the highway for the simple, which the Gospel presents. A slip in a single expression was enough to make a man a heretic. The use or omission of a single word occasioned a new rent in Chris- tianity. Every heresy produced a new creed, and every creed a new heresy Never does human folly and learned ignorance appear in a more disgusting point of view than in these disputes of Christians amongst themselves ; nor does any study appear so well calculated to foster infidelity as the history of Christian sects, unless the reader be guided by light from above, and carefully distinguish the doctrines of the Bible from the miserable disputes of pretended Christians." — P. 53. To discuss this important subject more fully (or perhaps indeed as fully as it has been here treated of) is hardly suitable to a logical work: and yet the importance of attending to the ambiguity I have now been considering, cannot be duly appreciated, without offering some remarks on the subject-matter with which that ambiguity is con- nected; and such remarks again, if scantily and imperfectly developed, are open to cavil or mistake. I must take the liberty therefore of referring the reader to such works, both my own, and those of others, as contain something of a fuller statement of the same views. — See Essays (First Series), Essay II. §4, and Essays IV. and V.;— Second 336 APPENDIX. Series, Essay VI. § 2, p. 199; VII. § 3; and IX. § 1.— Origin of Romish Errors, Chap. ii. § 1 . Archbishop King's Sermon on Predestination , S^c, and Encyclop. Me- tropoL History, Chap, xxvii. p. 589, and Chap, xxxiv. p. 740. ^ POSSIBLE.— This word, hke the others of kindred meaning, relates sometimes to contingency, sometimes to power; and these two senses are frequently confounded. In the first sense we say, e.g, " it is possible this patient may recover," not meaning, that it depends on his choice ; but that we are not sure whether the event will not be such. In the other sense it is " possible" to the best man to violate every rule of morality ; since if it were out of his power to act so if he chose it, there would be no moral goodness in the case ; though we are quite sure that such never will be his choice. — See " Impossible." PRIEST.— ^^^ " Dissertation," Book IV. Ch. iv. § 2. Etynio'ogically, the word answers to Presbyter, i.e. Elder m he Christian Church ; and is often applied to the second order of Christian Ministers at the present day. But it is^ remarkable that it never occurs in this sense, in our translation of the Scriptures: the word Tr/oeajSvrepoc being always rendered by Elder ; and its derivative, Priest, always given as the translation oi'Up^vq. This latter is an office assigned to none under the Gospel-scheme, except the ONE great High Priest, of whom the Jewish Priests were types, and who offered a sacrifice (that being the most distinguishing office of a Priest in the sense of 'lep^vg) which is the only one under the Gospel. It is incalculable how much confusion has arisen fi-om confounding together the two senses of the word Priest, and thence, the two offices themselves. I have enlarged accordingly on this subject in a Sermon, AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 337 preached before the University of Oxford, and subjoined to the last edition of the Bampton Lectures. See also Errors of Romanism, Chap. ii. REASON. — This word is liable to many ambiguities, of which I propose to notice only a few of the most important. Sometimes it is used to signify all the intellectual powers collectively; in which sense it can hardly be said to be altogether denied to brutes; since several of what we reckon intellectual processes in the human mind, are evi- dently such as some brutes are capable of. Reason is, however, frequently employed to denote those intellectual powers exclusively in which man differs from brutes ; though what these are no one has been able pre- cisely to define. The employment at will of the faculty of Abstraction seems to be the principal ; that being, at least, principally concerned in the use of Language. The Moral faculty, or power of distinguishing right from wrong, (which appears also to be closely connected with Abstraction,) is one of which brutes are destitute ; but then Dr. Paley and some other ethical writers deny it to man also. The de- scription given by that author of our discernment of good and bad conduct, (ri^. as wholly dependent on expectation of reward and punishment,) would equally apply to many of the brute-creation, especially the more intelligent of domestic animals, as dogs and horses. It is in this sense, however, that some writers speak of " Reason'^ as enabling us to judge of virtue and vice ; not, as Dr. Campbell in his Philosophy of Rhetoric has understood them, in the sense of the power of argumentation. Reason, however, is often used for the faculty of carrying on the third operation of the mind ; viss. Reasoning. And it is from inattention to this ambiguity (which has been re- peatedly noticed in the course of the foregoing treatise), that z 338 APPENDIX. some have treated of Logic as the art of rightly employing the mental faculties in general. Reason is also employed to signify the Premiss or Pre- mises of an argument; especially the minor Premiss; and it is from Reason in this sense that the word " Reasoning" is derived. It is also very frequently used to signify a Cause; as when we say, in popular language, that the " Reason of an eclipse of the sun is, that the moon is interposed between it and the earth." This should be strictly called the cause. On the other hand, " Because" (L e. by Cause) is used to introduce either the Physical Cause or the Logical Proof; and " Therefore," **Hence," " Since," " Follow," " Conse- quence," and many other kindred words, have a correspond- ing ambiguity : e. g. " the ground is wet, because it has rained ;" or " it has rained, and hence the ground is wet ;' this is the assignment of the Cause; again, " it has rained, because the ground is wet ;" " the ground is wet, and there- fore it has rained :" this is assigning the logical proof; the wetness of the ground is the cause, not of the rain having fallen, but of our knowing that it has fallen. And this pro- bably it is that has led to the ambiguous use in all languages of almost all the words relating to these two points. It is an ambiguity which has produced incalculable confusion of thought, and from which it is the harder to escape, on account of its extending to those very forms of expression which are introduced in order to clear it up. What adds to the confusion is, that the Cause is often employed as a Proof of the effect :* as when we infer, from a great fall of rain, that there is, or will be, a flood ; which is at once the physical effect, and the logical conclusion. The case is just reversed, when from a flood we infer that the rain has fallen. • See Fallacies. " Non causa pro causa." Book III. § 14. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 339 The more attention any one bestows on this ambiguity, the more extensive and important its results will appear. — See Analytical Outline, § 2. REGENERATION.— This word is employed by some Divines to signify the actual new hfe and character which ought to distinguish the Christian ; by others, a release from a state of condemnation, — a reconciliation to God, — adop- tion as his children, ^c.,* which is a necessary preliminary to the entrance on such a state; (but which, unhappily, is not invariably followed by it) : and these are, of course, as different things as a grain of seed sown, and " the full corn in the ear." Much controversy has taken place as to the time at which, and the circumstances under which, " Regeneration" takes place ; the greater part of which may be traced to this ambiguity. SAME (as well as " One," " Identical," and other words derived from them) is used frequently in a sense very dif- ferent from its primary one; (as applicable to a single object); vl%, it is employed to denote great similarity. When several objects are undistinguishably alike, One single description will apply equally to any of them ; and thence they are said to be all of one and the same nature, appear- ance, ^c. : as e, g. when we say, " this house is built of the same stone with such another," we only mean that the stones are undistinguishable in their qualities; not, that the one building was pulled down, and the other constructed with the materials. Whereas Sameness, in the primary sense, *".... Baptism, wherein / was made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven." . ..." A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness, ^c." .... " We being regenerate, and made thy children by adoption and grace, ^c." z2 340 APPENDIX. does not even necessarily imply Similarity ; for if we say of any man that he is greatly altered since such a time, we understand, and indeed imply by the very expression, that he is One person, though different in several qualities, else it would not be he. It is worth observing also, that " Same," in the secondary sense, admits, according to popular usage, of degrees : we speak of two things being nearly the same, but not entirely: personal indentity does not admit of degrees. Nothing, perhaps, has contributed more to the error of Realism than inattention to this ambiguity. When several persons are said to have One and the Same opinion — thought — or idea, — many men, overlooking the true simple statement of the case, which is, that they are all thinking alike, look for something more abstruse and mystical, and imagine there must be some One Thing, in the primary sense, though not an individual, which is present at once in the mind of each of these persons: and thence readily sprung Plato's theory of Ideas, each of which was, according to him, one real, eternal object, existing entire and complete in each of the individual objects that are known by one name. Hence, first in poetical mythology, and ultimately, perhaps, in popular belief. Fortune, Liberty, Prudence, (Minerva,) a Boundary, (Terminus,) and even the Mildew of Corn, (Rubigo,) %c., became personified, deified, and re- presented by Statues ; somewhat according to the process which is described by Swift, in his humorous manner, in speaking of Zeal, (in the Tale of a Tub,) " how from a notion it became a word, and from thence, in a hot summer, ripened into a tangible Substance." We find Seneca thinking it necessary gravely to combat the position of some of his Stoical predecessors, " that the Cardinal Virtues are Animals : while the Hindoos of the present day, from observing the similar symptoms which are known by the AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 341 name of Small-pox, and the communication of the like from one patient to another, do not merely call it (as we do) one disease, but believe (if we may credit the accounts given) that the Small-pox is a Goddess, who becomes incarnate in each infected patient. All these absurdities are in fact but the extreme and ultimate point of Realism. — See Dis- sertation, Book IV. Chap. v. SIN, in its ordinary acceptation, means some actual transgression, in thought, word, or deed, of the moral law, or of a positive divine precept. It has also, what may be called, a theological sense, in which it is used for that sinfulness or frailty , — that liability, or proneness, to trans- gression, which all men inherit from their first parents, and which is commonly denominated " original " Sin ;* in which sense we find such expressions as " in Sin hath my Mother conceived me." The word seems also to be still further transferred, to signify the state of condemnation itself in which the children of Adam are, " by nature born," in consequence of this sinful tendency in them : (or, according to some divines, in consequence of the very guilt of Adam's offence being actually imputed to each individual of his posterity.)f It must be in the sense of a " state of condemnation" that our Church, in her oflSce for Infant Baptism, speaks of " remission of Sins," with reference to a * Of the degree of this depravity of our nature, various accounts are given ; some representing it as amounting to a total loss of the moral faculty, or even, to a preference of evil for its own sake ; others making it to consist in a certain undue preponderance of the lower propensities over the nobler sentiments, 8fc. But these seem to be not differences as to the sense of the word, (with which alone we are here concerned) but as to the state of the fact. t I must again remind the reader that I am inquiring only into the senses in which each word has actually been used ; not into the truth or falsity of each doctrine in question. On the present question, see Essays on the Difficulties in St. Paul's Writings, Essay VI. 342 APPENDIX. child, which is no moral agent : *' following the innocency of children," (?. e, of actual Sin) being mentioned within a few sentences. And as it is plain that actual Sin cannot, in the former place, be meant, so, neither can it be, in this place, man's proneness to Sin: since the baptismal office would not pray for, and hold out a promise of, " release'' and " remission " of that (ppovrtima crapKog which, according to the Article, " remains even in the regenerate." Though all Theologians probably are aware of these distinctions, yet much confusion of thought has resulted from their not being always attended to. THEREFORE.— aS'^^ " Reason," and '' Why." TRUTH, in the strict logical sense, applies to Propo- sitions, and to nothing else ; and consists in the conformity of the declaration made to the actual state of the case; agreeably to Aldrich's definition of a " true " proposition — vera est, quae quod res est dicit. It would be an advantage if the word Trueness or Verity could be introduced and employed in this sense, since the word Truth is so often used to denote the " true '* Proposition itself, " What I tell you is the Truth ; the Truth of what I say shall be proved :" the term is here used in these two senses. In like manner Falsehood is often opposed to Truth in both these senses ; being commonly used to signify the quality of a false proposition. But as we have the word Falsity, which properly denotes this, I have thought it best, in a scientific treatise, always to employ it for that purpose. In its etymological sense. Truth signifies that which the speaker " trows," or believes to be the fact. The etymology of the word AAHGES seems to be similar ; de- noting non-concealment. In this sense it is opposed to a AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 343 Lie: and may be called Moral, as the other may Logical, Truth. A witness therefore may comply with his oath to speak the Truth, though it so happen that he is mistaken in some particular of his evidence, provided he is fully con- vinced that the thing is as he states it. Truth is not unfrequently applied, in loose and in- accurate language, to arguments; where the proper ex- pression would be " correctness," " conclusiveness," or " validity." Truth again, is often used in the sense of Reality, People speak of the Truth or Falsity oi facts ; properly speaking, they are either real or fictitious : it is the state- ment that is "true" or "false." The "true" cause of any thing, is a common expression ; meaning " that which may with Truth be assigned as the cause." The senses of Falsehood correspond. " Truth " in the sense of " reality " is also opposed to shadows, — types, — pictures, Sfc. Thus, " the Law was given by Moses, but grace and ' truth ' came by Jesus Christ:" for the Law had only a ''shadow of good things to come." The present is an ambiguity of which the Romanists have often availed themselves with great effect; the ambiguity of the word Church (which see) lending its aid to the fallacy. " Even the Protestants," they say, " dare not deny ours to be a TRUE CHURCH ; now there can be but ONE TRUE CHURCH ;" (which they support by those passages of Scripture which relate to the collective body of Christians in all those several branches which also are called in Scripture Churches ;) " ours therefore must be the true Church; if you forsake us, you forsake the truth and the Church, and consequently shut yourself out from the promises of the Gospel. Those who are of a logical and accurate turn of mind will easily perceive that 344 APPENDIX. the sense in which the Romish Church is admitted by her opponents to be a true Church, is that of reality ; — it is a real, not a pretended Church ; — it may be truly said to be a Church. The sense in which the Romanists seize the concession is, that of a Church teaching true doctrines; which was never conceded to the Church of Rome by the Protestants ; who hold, that a Church may err without ceasing to be a Church. WHENCE.— A^^^ " Why," and " Reason." WHY ? — As an interrogative, this word is employed in three senses: vi%. " By what proof?" (or Reason) " From what Cause?" " For what purpose? " This last is commonly called the " final cause." E, G, " Why is this prisoner guilty of the crime?" " Why does a stone fall to the earth?" " Why did you go to London?" Much confusion has arisen from not distinguishing these different inquiries. See Reason. N.B. As the words which follow are all of them con- nected together in their significations, and as the expla- nations of their ambiguities have been furnished by the kindness of the Professor of Political Economy, it seemed advisable to place them by themselves, and in the order in which they appeared to him most naturally to arrange themselves. The foundations of Political Economy being a few general propositions deduced from observation or from consciousness, and generally admitted as soon as stated, it might have been expected that there would be as little difference of opinion among Political-Economists as among V AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 345 Mathematicians ; — that, being agreed in their premises, they could not differ in their conclusions, but through some error in reasoning, so palpable as to be readily detected. And if they had possessed a vocabulary of general terms as precisely defined as the mathematical, this would pro- bably have been the case. But as the terms of this Science are drawn from common discourse, and seldom carefully defined by the writers who employ them, hardly one of them has any settled and invariable meaning, and their ambiguities are perpetually overlooked. The principal terms are only seven : vi^. Value, Wealth, Labour, Capital, Rent, Wages, Profits. 1. VALUE. As value is the only relation with which Political Economy is conversant, we might expect all Economists to be agreed as to its meaning. There is no subject as to which they are less agreed. The popular, and far the most convenient, use of the word, is to signify the capacity of being given and received in exchange. So defined, it expresses a relation. The value of any one thing must consist in the several quantities of all other things which can be obtained in exchange for it, and can never remain fixed for an instant. Most writers admit the propriety of this definition at the outset, but they scarcely ever adhere to it. Adam Smith defines Value to mean either the utility of a particular object, or the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys. The first he calls " Value in use," the second " Value in exchange." But he soon afterwards says, that equal quantities of labour at all times and places are of equal Value to the labourer, whatever may be the quantity of goods he receives in return for them ; and that labour never varies in its own Value. It is clear that he affixed, or thought he had affixed, some other 346 APPENDIX. meaning to the word ; as the first of these propositions is contradictory, and the second false, whichever of his two definitions we adopt. Mr. Ricardo appears to set out by admitting Adam Smith's definition of Value in exchange. But in the greater part of his " Principles of Political Economy," he uses the word as synonymous with Cost : and by this one ambiguity has rendered his great work a long enigma. Mr. Malthus* defines Value to be the power of pur- chasing. In the very next page he distinguishes absolute from relative Value, a distinction contradictory to his defini- tion of the term, as expressive of a relation. Mr. M'Cullochf distinguishes between real and ex- changeable, or relative. Value. And in his nomenclature, the exchangeable, or relative, value of a commodity consists in its capacity of purchasing ; — its real Value in the quantity of labour required for its production or appropriation. All these differences appear to arise from a confusion of cause and eflfect. Having decided that commodities are Valuable in proportion to the labour they have respectively cost, it was natural to call that labour their Value. 2, WEALTH. Lord Lauderdale has defined Wealth to be " all that man desires." Mr. Malthus, J " those material objects which are necessary, useful, or agreeable." Adam Smith confines the term to that portion of the results of land and labour which is capable of being accumulated. The French Economists, to the net product of land. Mr. M'Culloch§ and M. Storch, || to those material products * "Measure of Value," p. 1. t " Principles of Political Economy," Part III. sect. 1. X " Principles of Political Economy," page 28. § " Supplement to the Encyclopaedia Britannica," Vol. VI. p. 217. II " Cours d' Economic Politique," Tome I. p. 91. Paris edit. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 347 which have exchangeable value ; according to Colonel Torrens* it consists of articles which possess utility and are produced by some portion of voluntary effort. M. Sayf divides wealth into natural and social, and applies the latter term to whatever is susceptible of exchange. It will be observed that the principal difference between these defini- tions consists in the admission or rejection of the qualifi- cations " exchangeable," and, " material." It were well if the ambiguities of this word had done no more than puzzle philosophers. One of them gave birth to the mercantile system. In common language, to grow rich is to get money; to diminish in fortune is to lose money : a rich man is said to have a great deal of money ; a poor man, very little : and the terms Wealth and Money are in short employed as synonymous. In consequence of these popular notions (to use the words of Adam Smith) all the different nations of Europe have studied every means of accumulating gold and silver in their respective countries. This they have attempted by prohibiting the exportation of money, and by giving bounties on the exportation, and im- posing restrictions on the importation, of other commodities, in the hope of producing what has been called a "favourable balance of trade;" that is, a trade in which, the imports being always of less value than the exports, the difference is paid in money. A conduct as wise as that of a tradesman who should part with his goods only for money ; and instead of employing their price in paying his workmen's wages, or replacing his stock, should keep it for ever in his till. The attempt to force such a trade has been as vain, as the trade, if it could have been obtained, would have been mischievous. But the results have been fraud, punishment, and poverty at home, and discord and war without. It has made na- tions consider the Wealth of their customers a source of loss * " Production of Wealth," p. 1. t " Traits d'Economie Pol." Liv. II. Chap. ii. 348 APPENDIX. instead of profit; and an advantageous market a curse instead of a blessing. By inducing them to refuse to profit by the pecuhar advantages in chmate, soil, or industry, possessed by their neighbours, it has forced them in a great measure to give up their own. It has for centuries done more, and perhaps for centuries to come will do more, to retard the improvement of Europe than all other causes put to- gether. 3. LABOUR. The word Labour signifies both the act of labouring, and the result of that act. It is used in the first sense when we talk of the wages of labour; in the second when we talk of accumulated labour. When used to express the act of labouring, it may appear to have a precise sense, but it is still subject to some ambiguity. Say's definition* is, "action suivie, dirig6e vers un but." Storch's,f "Taction des facultes humaines dirigee vers un but utile." These definitions include a walk taken for the purposes of health, and even the exertions of an agree- able converser. The great defect of Adam Smith, and of our own eco- nomists in general, is the want of definitions. There is, perhaps, no definition of Labour by any British Econo- mist. If Adam Smith had framed one, he would probably have struck out his celebrated distinction between " pro- ductive" and "unproductive" labourers; for it is difficult to conceive any definition of Labour which will admit the epithet "unproductive" to be applied to any of its sub- divisions, excepting that of misdirected labour. On the other hand, if Mr. M'CuUoch or Mr. Mill had defined Labour, they would scarcely have applied that term to the growth of a tree, or the improvement of wine in a cellar. * "Traite," &c. Tome II. p. 506. f " Corns," &c. Liv. I. Chap, iv. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 349 4. CAPITAL. This word, as might have been expected, from the complexity of the notions which it imphes, has been used in very different senses. It is, as usual, undefined by Adam Smith. The general meaning which he attached to it will however appear from his enumeration of its species. He divides it* into Fixed and Circulating : including in the first what the capitalist retains, in the second what he parts with. Fixed Capital he subdivides into — 1. Machinery; 2. Shops and other buildings used for trade or manufacture; 3. Improvements of land; 4. Knowledge and skill. Circulating Capital he subdivides into — 1. Money; 2, Provisions in the hands of the provision-venders ; 3. Unfinished materials of manu- facture; 4. Finished work in the hands of the merchant or manufacturer; such as furniture in a cabinet-maker's shop, or trinkets in that of a jeweller. The following is a list of the definitions adopted by some of the most eminent subsequent economists: Ricardof — " that part of the wealth of a country which is employed in production; consisting of food, clothing, tools, raw materials, machinery, ^c, necessary to give effect to labour." Malthus X — " that portion of the material possessions of a country which is destined to be employed with a view to profit." Say§ — " accumulation de valeurs soustraites a la con- somption improductive." Chap. iii. " Machinery, necessa- ries of the workman, materials." Storch|| — " un fonds de richesses destine a la production materielle." * Book II. Chap. i. f "Principles of Political Economy," p. 89, 3rd edit. X " Principles," &c. p. 293. § "Traits," &c. Tome II. p. 454. II " Cours," &c. Liv. II. Chap. i. 350 APPENDIX. M*Culloch* — "that portion of the produce of industry which can be made directly available to support human existence or facilitate production." Millf — " something produced, for the purpose of being employed as the mean towards a further production." TorrensJ — "Those things on which labour has been bestowed, and which are destined, not for the immediate supply of our wants, but to aid us in obtaining other articles ofutihty." It is obvious that few of these definitions exactly coin- cide. Adam Smith's (as implied in his use of the term ; for he gives no formal definition) excludes the necessaries of the labourer, when in his own possession ; all the rest (and perhaps with better reason) admit them. On the other hand, Adam Smith admits (and in that he seems to be right) those things which are incapable of productive con- sumption, provided they have not yet reached their con- sumers. All the other definitions, except perhaps that of Mr. Malthus, which is ambiguous, are subject to the incon- sistency of affirming that a diamond, and the gold in which it is to be set, are Capital while the jeweller keeps them separate, but cease to be so when he has formed them into a ring; almost all of them, also, pointedly exclude know- ledge and skill. The most objectionable, perhaps, is that of Mr. M'Culloch, which, while it excludes all the finished contents of a jeweller's shop, would include a racing-stud. Adam Smith, however, is far from being consistent in his use of the word ; thus, in the beginning of his second book he states, that all Capitals are destined for the main- tenance of productive labour only. It is difficult to see * " Principles," &c. p. 92. t " Elements," &c. p. 19, 3rd edit I " Production of Wealth," p. 5. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 351 what labour is maintained by what is to be unproductively consumed. 5. RENT. 6. WAGES. 7. PROFIT. Adam Smith first divided revenue into Rent, Wages, and Profit ; and his division has been generally followed. The following definitions will best show the degree of precision with which these three terms have been em- ployed. Adam Smith. 1. Rent. What is paid for the licence to gather the produce of the land. — Book I. Chap. vi. 2. Wages. The price of labour. — Book I. Chap. v. 3. Profit. The revenue derived firom stock by the person who manages or employs it. — Book I. Chap, vi/ Say. {Traits dEconomie Politique.) 4eme Edit. 1. Rent. Le profit resultant du service productif de la terre. — Tome II. p. 169. 2. Wages. Le prix de I'achat dun service productif industriel. — Tome II. p. 503. 3. Profit. La portion de la valeur produite, retiree par le capitaliste. — Tome I. p. 71, subdivided into interet, profit industriel, and profit capital. Storch. (Cours (TEconomie Politique.) Paris, 1823. 1. Rent. Le prix qu'on paye pour I'usage d'un fonds de terre. — Tome I. p. 354. 2. Wages. Le prix du travail. — p. 283. 352 APPENDIX. 3. Profit. The returns to capital are considered by Storch, under the heads, rente de capital, and profit de I'en- trepreneur. The first he divides into loyer, the hire of fixed capital, and interet, that of circulating capital. The second he considers as composed of, 1st, remuneration for the use of capital ; 2d, assurance against risk ; 3d, remuneration for trouble. — Liv. III. Chap. ii. viii. xiii. . SiSMONDi. (Nouveau Principes, S^c) 1 . Rent. La part de la recolte annuelle du sol qui revient au proprietaire apres qu'il a acquitte les frais qui Font fait nattre ; and he analyzes rent into, 1st, la compen- sation du travail de la terre ; 2d, le prix de monopole ; 3d, la mieux valeur que le proprietaire obtient par la com- paraison d'une terre de nature superieure a une terre inferieure ; 4th, le revenu des capitaux qu'il a fixes lui- meme sur la terre, et ne pent plus en retirer. — Tome I. p. 280. 2. Wages. Le prix du travail. — p. 9L 3. Profit. La valeur dont I'ouvrage achev^ surpasse les avances qui Font fait faire. L'avantage qui resulte des travaux passes. Subdivided into interet and profit mer- cantile.— p. 94, 359. Malthus. {Principles, Sfc.) \. Rent. That portion of the value of the whole pro- duce of land vv^hich remains to the owner after payment of all the outgoings of cultivation, including average profits on the capital employed. The excess of price above wages and profits. — p. 134. 2. Wages. The remuneration of the labourer for his personal exertions. — p. 240. AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 353 3. Profit. The difference between the value of the advances necessary to produce a commodity, and the value of the commodity when produced. — p. 293. Mill, f Elements, %c,) 3rd Ed. 1. Rent. The difference between the return made to the most productive, and that which is made to the least productive portion of capital employed on the land. — p. 33. 2. Wages. The price of the labourer's share of the commodity produced. — p. 41. 3. Profit. The share of the joint produce of labour and stock which is received by the owner of stock after replacing the capital consumed. The portion of the whole annual produce which remains after deducting rent and wages. Remuneration for hoarded labour. — Chap. 2, 3. ToRRENS. (Corn Trade.) 3rd Ed. 1. Rent. That part of the produce which is given to the land-proprietor for the use of the soil. — p. 130. 2. Wages. The articles of wealth which the labourer receives in exchange for his labour. — p. 83. 3. Profit, The excess of value which the finished work possesses above the value of the material, implements, and subsistence expended. The surplus remaining after the cost of production has been replaced. — Production of Wealth, p. 53, M*CuLLOCH. (Principles, %c.) 1. Rent. That portion of the produce of the earth which is paid by the farmer to the landlord for the use of the natural and inherent powers of the soil. — p. 265, A A 354 APPENDIX. 2. Wages. The compensation paid to labourers in re- turn for their services. — Essai/ on Rate of Wages, p. 1. 3. Profit. The excess of the commodities produced by the expenditure of a given quantity of capital, over that quantity of capital. — Principles, p. S66. RiCARDO. (Principles, Sfc.) 3rd Ed. 1. Rent. That portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil. — p. 5S. 2. Wages. The labourer's proportion of the produce. — Chap. V. 3. Profit. The capitalist's proportion of the produce. — Chap. vi. The first observation to be made on these definitions, is, that the Rent of land, which is only a species of an exten- sive genus, is used as a genus, and that its cognate species are either omitted, or included under genera to which they do not properly belong. Wages and Profits are of human creation : they imply a sacrifice of ease or imme- diate enjoyment, and bear a ratio to that sacrifice which is indicated by the common expressions of " the rate of wages," and the "rate of profits:" a ratio which has a strong tendency to uniformity. But there is another and a very large source of revenue which is not the creation of man, but of nature ; which owes its origin, not to the will of its possessor, but to accident ; which implies no sacri- fice, has no tendency to uniformity, and to which the term "rate" is seldom applied. This revenue arises from the exclusive right to some instrument of production, enabling the employment of a given amount of labour or capital to be more than usually productive. The principal of these AMBIGUOUS TERMS. 355 instruments is land ; but all extraordinary powers of body or mind, — all processes in manufacture which are pro- tected by secrecy or by law, — all peculiar advantages from situation or connexion, — in short, every instrument of production which is not universally accessible, affords a revenue distinct in its origin from Wages or Profits, and of which the Rent of land is only a species. In the classi- fication of revenues, either Rent ought to have been omitted as a genus, and considered only as an anomalous interruption of the general uniformity of wages and pro- fits, or all the accidental sources of revenue ought to have been included in one genus, of which the Rent of land would have formed the principal species. Another remark is, that almost all these definitions of Profit include the wages of the labour of the Capitalist, The continental Economists have in general been aware of this, and have pointed it out in their analyses of the com- ponent parts of Profit. The British Economists have seldom entered into this analysis, and the want of it has been a great cause of obscurity. On the other hand, much of what properly belongs to Profit and Rent is generally included under Wages. Al- most all Economists consider the members of the liberal professions under the class of labourers. The whole sub- sistence of such persons, observes Mr. M*Culloch,* is de- rived from Wages; and they are as evidently labourers as if they handled the spade or the plough. But it should be considered, that those who are engaged in any occupa- tion requiring more skill than that of a common husband- man, must have expended capital, more or less, on the acquisition of their skill ; their education must have cost something in every case, from that of the handicraft- * " Principles," &c. p. 228. A K 2 356 APPENDIX. apprentice, to that of the legal or medical student ; and a Profit on this outlay is of course looked for, as in other disbursements of capital ; and the higher profit, in propor- tion to the risk; vi%. the uncertainty of a man's success in his business. Part, therefore, and generally far the greater part, of what has been reckoned the wages of his labour, ought more properly to be reckoned profits on the capital expended in fitting him for that particular kind of labour. And again, all the excess of gains acquired by one possessing extraordinary talents, opportunities, or patronage (since these correspond to the possession of land, — of a patent-right — or other monopoly, — of a secret, §'c.) may be more properly regarded as Rent than as Wages. Another most fruitful source of ambiguity arises from the use of the word Wages, sometimes as expressing a quantity f sometimes as expressing a proportion. In ordinary language, Wages means the amount of some commodity^ generally of silver, given to the labourer in return for a given exertion ; and they rise or fall, as that amount is increased or diminished. In the language of Mr. Ricardo, they usually mean the labourer's proportion of what is produced, supposing that produce to be divided between him and the Capitalist. In this sense they generally rise as the whole produce is dimi- nished; though, if the word be used in the other sense, they generally fall. If Mr. Ricardo had constantly used the word " Wages," to express a proportion, the only inconvenience would have been the necessity of always translating this expression into common language. But he is not consistent. When he says,* that " whatever raises the Wages of labour lowers the Profits of stock," * "Principles," &c. p. 312. AMBIGUOUS TERxMS. 357 lie considers Wages as a proportion. When he says,* that " high Wages encourage population ;" he considers wages as an amount. Even Mr. M^Culloch, who has clearly explained the ambiguity, has not escaped it. He has even suffered it to affect his reasonings. In his valuable essay, " On the Rate of Wages,"f he admits that " when Wages are high, the Capitalist has to pay a larger share of the produce of industry to his labourers." An admission utterly inconsistent with his general use of the word, as expressing the amount of what the labourer receives, which, as he has himself observed, J may increase while his proportion diminishes. A few only have been noticed of the ambiguities which attach to the seven terms that have been selected ; and these terms have been fixed on, not as the most ambiguous, but as the most important, in the political nomenclature. " Supply and Demand," " Productive and Unproductive," " Overtrading," and very many others, both in political economy, and in other subjects, which are often used with- out any more explanation, or any more suspicion of their requiring it, than the words " triangle " or " twenty, " are perhaps even more liable to ambiguities than those above treated of. But it is sufficient for the purpose of this Appendix to have noticed, by way of specimens, a few of the most remarkable terms in several different branches of knowledge, in order to show both the fre- quency of an ambiguous use of language, and the im- portance of clearing up such ambiguity. « " Principles," &c. p. 83. t P- 161. X " Principles of Political Economy," p. 365. APPENDIX. No. IL MISCELLANEOUS EXAMPLES FOR THE EXERCISE OF LEARNERS* N. B. In such of the following Examples as are not in a syllogistic form, it is intended that the student should practise the reduction of them into that form ; those of them, that is, in which the reasoning is in itself sound: viss* where it is impossible to admit the Premises and deny the Conclusion. Of such as are apparent syllo- gisms, the validity must be tried by logical rules, which it may be advisable to apply in the following order: 1st. Observe whether the argument be Categorical or Hypothetical; recollecting that an hypothetical Premiss does not necessarily imply an hypothetical Syllogism, unless the reasoning turns on the hypothesis. If this appear to be the case, the rules for hypothetical Syllo- gisms must be applied. 2dly. If the argument be cate- gorical, count the terms. 3dly. If only three, observe whether the Middle be distributed. 4thly. Observe whether the Premises are both negative ; (i, e. really, and not in appearance only,) and if one is, whether the Conclusion be negative also; or affirmative, if both Premises affirmative. 5thly. Observe what terms are distributed in the Conclusion, and whether the same are EXAMPLES. 359 distributed in the Premises. 6thly. If the Syllogism is not a Categorical in the first Figure, reduce it to that form. 1 . No one is free who is enslaved by his appetites : a sensualist is enslaved by his appetites: therefore a sen- sualist is not free. 2. None but Whites are civilized : the ancient Germans were Whites : therefore they were civilized 3. None but Whites are civilzed: the Hindoos are not Whites : therefore they are not civilized. 4. None but civilized people are Whites : the Gauls were Whites : therefore they were civilized. 5. No one is rich who has not enough: no miser has enough : therefore no miser is rich. 6. If penal laws against Papists were enforced, they would be aggrieved: but penal laws against them are not enforced : therefore the Papists are not aggrieved. 7. If all testimony to miracles is to be admitted, the popish legends are to be believed : but the popish legends are not to be believed: therefore no testimony to miracles is to be admitted. 8. If men are not likely to be influenced in the perform- ance of a known duty by taking an oath to perform it, the oaths commonly administered are superfluous : if they are likely to be so influenced, every one should be made to take an oath to behave rightly throughout his life ; but one or the other of these must be the case : therefore either the oaths commonly administered are superfluous, or every man should be made to take an oath to behave rightly throughout his life. 9. The Scriptures must be admitted to be agreeable to truth ; and the Church of England is comformable to the Scriptures : A. B. is a divine of the Church of England ; 360 APPENDIX. and this opinion is in accordance with his sentiments : there- fore it must be presumed to be true. 10. Enoch (according to the testimony of Scripture) pleased God ; but without faith it is impossible to please Him ; (for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him): therefore, S^c. 11. "If Abraham were justified by works, then had he whereof to glory [before God :] but not [any one can have whereof to glory] before God:" therefore Abraham was not justified by works. 12. " He that is of God heareth my words; ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." 13. Few treatises of science convey important truths, without any intermixture of error, in a perspicuous and interesting form: and therefore, though a treatise would deserve much attention which should possess such excel- lence, it is plain that few treatises of science do deserve much attention. 14. We are bound to set apart one day in seven for religious duties, if the fourth commandment is obligatory on us : but we are bound to set apart one day in seven for religious duties ; and hence it appears that the fourth com- mandment is obligatory on us. 15. Abstinence from the eating of blood had reference to the divine institution of sacrifices : one of the precepts delivered to Noah was abstinence from the eating of blood : therefore one of the precepts delivered to Noah contained the divine institution of sacrifices. 16. If expiatory sacrifices were divinely appointed be- fore the Mosaic law, they must have been expiatory, not of ceremonial sin (which could not then exist), but of moral sin : if so, the Levitical sacrifices must have had no less efficacy ; and in that case, the atonements under the Mosaic EXAMPLES. 361 law would have " made the comers thereunto perfect as pertaining to the conscience ; " but this was not the case : therefore, ^'C. [Davison on Prophecy.] 17. The adoration of images is forbidden to Christians, if we suppose the Mosaic law designed not for the Israel- ites alone, but for all men : it was designed, however, for the Israelites alone, and not for all men : therefore the ado- ration of images is not forbidden to Christians. 18. A desire to gain by another's loss is a violation of the tenth commandment: all gaming, therefore, since it implies a desire to profit at the expense of another, involves a breach of the tenth commandment. 19. All the fish that the net enclosed were an indiscri- minate mixture of various kinds : those that were set aside and saved as valuable, were fish that the net enclosed: therefore those that were set aside, and saved as valuable, were an indiscriminate mixture of various kinds. 20. All the elect are finally saved: such persons as are arbitrarily separated from the rest of mankind by the divine decree are the elect : therefore such persons as are arbitrarily separated from the rest of mankind by the divine decree, are finally saved. [The opponents of this ronckision generally deny the Minor Premiss and admit the Major ; the reverse would be the more sound and the more effectual objection.] 21. No one who lives with another on terms of confi- dence is justified, on any pretence, in killing him : Brutus lived on terms of confidence with Caesar : therefore he was not justified, on the pretence he pleaded, in killing him. 22. He that destroys a man who usurps despotic power in a free country deserves well of his countrymen : Brutus destroyed Caesar, who usurped despotic power in Rome : therefore he deserved well of the Romans. 23. If virtue is voluntary, vice is voluntary: virtue is voluntary : therefore so is vice. [Arist. Eth. B. iii.] 362 APPENDIX. 24f. A wise lawgiver must either recognise the rewards and punishments of a future state, or must be able to appeal to an extraordinary Providence, dispensing them regularly in this life ; Moses did not do the former : there- fore he must have done the latter. 25. Nothing which is of less frequent occurrence than the falsity of testimony can be fairly established by testi- mony: any extraordinary and unusual fact is a thing of less frequent occurrence than the falsity of testimony (that being very common): therefore no extraordinary and unusual fact can be fairly established by testi- mony. 26. Testimony is a kind of evidence which is very likely to be false : the evidence on which most men believe that there are pyramids in Egypt is testimony: therefore the evidence on which most men believe that there are pyra- mids in Egypt is very likely to be false. 27. The religion of the ancient Greeks and Romans was a tissue of extravagant fables and groundless superstitions, credited by the vulgar and the weak, and maintained by the more enlightened, from selfish or political views : the same was clearly the case with the religion of the Egyp- tians: the same may be said of ihe Brahminical worship of India, and the religion of Fo, professed by the Chinese : the same, of the romantic mythological system of the Pe- ruvians, of the stern and bloody rites of the Mexicans, and those of the Britons and of the Saxons : hence we may conclude that all systems of religion, however varied in circumstances, agree in being superstitions kept up among the vulgar, from interested or political views in the more enlightened classes. [See Dissertation, Chap i. § 2. p. 234.] 28. No man can possess power to perform impossibilities ; a miracle is an impossibility : therefore no man can possess power to perform a miracle. [See Appendix, p. 299.] EXAMPLES. 363 ^. A. B. and C. D. are each of them equal to E. F. : therefore they are equal to each other. 30. Protection from punishment is plainly due to the innocent : therefore, as you maintain that this person ought not to be punished, it appears that you are convinced of his innocence. 31. All the most bitter persecutions have been religious persecutions : among the most bitter persecutions were those which occurred in France during the revolution: therefore they must have been religious persecutions. 32. He who cannot possibly act otherwise than he does, has neither merit nor demerit in his action : a liberal and benevolent man cannot possibly act otherwise than he does in relieving the poor : therefore such a man has neither merit nor demerit in his action. [See Appendix, pp. 314, 315.] 33. What happens every day is not improbable : some things against which the chances are many thousands to one, happen every day: therefore some things against which the chances are many thousands to one, are not improbable. 34. The early and general assignment of the Epistle to the Hebrews to Paul as its author, must have been either from its professing to be his, and containing his name, or from its really being his; since, therefore, the former of these is not the fact, the Epistle must be Paul's. 35. " With some of them God was not well pleased : for they were overthrown in the wilderness." 36. A sensualist wishes to enjoy perpetual gratifications without satiety: it is impossible to enjoy perpetual grati- fications without satiety: therefore it is impossible for a sensualist to obtain his wish. 37. If Paley's system is to be received, one who has no knowledge of a future state has no means of distinguishing 364 APPENDIX. virtue and vice : now one who has no means of distinguish- ing virtue and vice can commit no sin : therefore, if Paley's system is to be received, one who has no knowledge of a future state can commit no sin. 38. The principles of justice are variable : the appoint- ments of nature are invariable : therefore the principles of justice are no appointment of nature. [Arist. Eth. B. v.] 39. Every one desires happiness : virtue is happiness : therefore every one desires virtue. [Arist. Eth. B. iii.] 40. A story is not to be believed, the reporters of which give contradictory accounts of it ; the story of the life and exploits of Buonaparte is of this description : therefore it is not to be believed. [Vide Elements, p. 28.] 41. When the observance of the first day of the week as a religious festival in commemoration of Christ's resurrec- tion, was first introduced, it must have been a novelty: when it was a novelty, it must have attracted notice : when it attracted notice, it would lead to inquiry respecting the truth of the resurrection : when it led to this inquiry, it must have exposed the story as an imposture, supposing it not attested by living witnesses : therefore, when the ob- servance of the first day of the week, ^c. was first introduced, it must have exposed as an imposture the story of the re- surrection, supposing it not attested by living witnesses. 42. All the miracles of Jesus would fill more books than the world could contain : the things related by the Evangelists are the miracles of Jesus : therefore the things related by the Evangelists would fill more books than the world could contain. 43. If the prophecies of the Old Testament had been written without knowledge of the events of the time of Christ, they could not correspond with them exactly ; and if they had been forged by Christians, they would not be preserved and acknowledged by the Jews : they are EXAMPLES. 365 preserved and acknowledged by the Jews, and they corre- spond exactly with the events of the time of Christ : there- fore they were neither written without knowledge of those events, nor were forged by Christians. 44. Of two evils the less is to be preferred : occasional turbulence, therefore, being a less evil than rigid despotism, is to be preferred to it. 45. According to theologians, a man must possess faith in order to be acceptable to the Deity: now he who be- lieves all the fables of the Hindoo mythology must possess faith: therefore such an one must, according to theologians, be acceptable to the Deity. 46. If Abraham were justified, it must have been either by faith or by works: now he was not justified by faith, (according to St. James,) nor by works (according to St. Paul) : therefore Abraham was not justified. 47. No evil should be allowed that good may come of it; all punishment is an evil : therefore no punishment should be allowed that good may come of it. 48. Repentance is a good thing : wicked men abound in repentance [Arist. Eth. B. ix.] : therefore wicked men abound in what is good. 49. A person infected with the plague will (probably) die [suppose three in five of the infected die]: this man is (pro- bably) infected with the plague [suppose it an even chance]: therefore he will (probably) die. [Query. What is the amount of this probability ? Again, suppose the probability of the major to be (instead of -|) i, and of the minor, (instead of ^) to be j, Query. What will be the probability of the conclusion?] 50. It must be admitted, indeed, that a man who has been accustomed to enjoy hberty cannot be happy in the condition of a slave : many of the negroes, however, may be happy in the condition of slaves, because they have never been accustomed to enjoy liberty. 366 APPENDIX. 51. Whatever is dictated by Nature is allowable: de- votedness to the pursuit of pleasure in youth, and to that of gain in old age, are dictated by Nature [Arist Rhet. B. ii.] : therefore they are allowable. 52. He is the greatest lover of any one who seeks that person's greatest good : a virtuous man seeks the greatest good for himself: therefore a virtuous man is the greatest lover of himself. [Arist. Eth. B. ix.] 5S. He who has a confirmed habit of any kind of action, exercises no self-denial in the practice of that action: a good man has a confirmed habit of Virtue: therefore he who exercises self-denial in the practice of Virtue is not a good man. [Arist. Eth. B. ii.] 54. That man is independent of the caprices of Fortune who places his chief happiness in moral and intellectual excellence : a true philosopher is independent of the ca- prices of Fortune : therefore a true philosopher is one who places his chief happiness in moral and intellectual excel- lence. 55. A system of government which extends to those ac- tions that are performed secretly, must be one which refers either to a regular divine providence in this life, or to the rewards and punishments of another world : every perfect system of government must extend to those actions which are performed secretly : no system of government there- fore can be perfect, which does not refer either to a regular divine providence in this life, or to the rewards and punish- ments of another world. [Warburton's Divine Legation.] 56. For those who are bent on cultivating their minds by diligent study, the incitement of academical honours is unnecessary ; and it is ineffectual, for the idle, and such as are indiflferent to mental improvement: therefore the in- citement of academical honours is either unnecessary or ineffectual. EXAMPLES. 367 57. He who is properly called an actor, does not en- deavour to make his hearers believe that the sentiments he expresses and the feelings he exhibits, are really his own : a barrister does this: therefore he is not properly to be called an actor. 58. He who bears arms at the command of the magis- trate does what is lawful for a Christian : the Swiss in the French service, and the British in the American service, bore arms at the command of the magistrate : therefore they did what was lawful for a Christian. 59. If Lord Bacon is right, it is improper to stock a new colony with the refuse of Jails: but this we must allow not to be improper, if our method of colonizing New South Wales be a wise one: if this be wise, therefore, Lord Bacon is not right. 60. Logic is indeed worthy of being cultivated, if Aris- totle is to be regarded as infallible : but he is not : Logic therefore is not worthy of being cultivated. 61. All studies are useful which tend to advance a man in life, or to increase national and private wealth : but the course of studies pursued at Oxford has no such tendency : therefore it is not useful. 62. If the exhibition of criminals, publicly executed, tends to heighten in others the dread of undergoing the same fate, it may be expected that those soldiers who have seen the most service, should have the most dread of death in battle: but the reverse of this is the case: therefore the former is not to be believed. 6S. If the everlasting favour of God is not bestowed at random, and on no principle at all, it must be bestowed either with respect to men's persons, or with respect to their conduct: but "God is no respecter of persons:" therefore his favour must be bestowed with respect to men's conduct. [Sumner's Apostolical Preaching.] 368 APPENDIX. 64. If transportation is not felt as a severe punishment, it is in itself ill-suited to the prevention of crime : if it is so felt, much of its severity is wasted, from its taking place at too great a distance to affect the feelings, or even come to the knowledge, of most of those whom it is de- signed to deter ; but one or other of these must be the case: therefore transportation is not calculated to answer the purpose of preventing crime. 65. War is productive of evil: therefore peace is likely to be productive of good. 66. Some objects of great beauty answer no other per- ceptible purpose but to gratify the sight: many flowers have great beauty ; and many of them accordingly answer no other purpose but to gratify the sight. 67. A man who deliberately devotes himself to a life of sensuality is deserving of strong reprobation: but those do not deliberately devote themselves to a life of sensu- ality who are hurried into excess by the impulse of the passions : such therefore as are hurried into excess by the impulse of the passions are not deserving of strong repro- bation. [Arist Eth. B. vii.] 68. It is a difficult task to restrain all inordinate desires : to conform to the precepts of Scripture implies a restraint of all inordinate desires : therefore it is a difficult task to conform to the precepts of Scripture. 69. Any one who is candid will refrain from condemn- ing a book without reading it: some Reviewers do not refrain from this : therefore some Reviewers are not candid. 70. If any objection that can be urged would justify a change of established laws, no laws could reasonably be maintained: but some laws can reasonably be maintained: therefore no objection that can be urged will justify a change of established laws. EXAMPLES. 369 71. If any complete theory could be framed, to explain the establishment of Christianity by human causes, such a theory would have been proposed before now ; but none such ever has been proposed : therefore no such theory can be framed. 72. He who is content with what he has, is truly rich • a covetous man is not content with what he has : no covet- ous man therefore is truly rich. 73. A true prophecy coincides precisely with all the cir- cumstances of such an event as could not be conjectured by natural reason : this is the case with the prophecies of the Messiah contained in the Old Testament : therefore these are true prophecies. 74. The connection of soul and body cannot be compre- hended or explained; but it must be believed: therefore something must be believed which cannot be comprehended or explained. 75. Lias lies above Red Sandstone ; Red Sandstone lie§ above Coal : therefore Lias lies above Coal. 76. Cloven feet belonging universally to horned animals, we may conclude that this fossil animal, since it appears to have had cloven feet, was horned. 77. All that glitters is not gold : tinsel glitters : therefore it is not gold. 78. A negro is a man : therefore he who murders a negro murders a man. 79. Meat and Drink are necessaries of life : the reve- nues of Vitellius were spent on Meat and Drink: there- fore the revenues of Vitellius were spent on the necessaries of life. 80. Nothing is heavier than Platina : feathers are heavier than Nothing : therefore feathers are heavier than Platina. 81. The child of Themistocles governed his mother; she governed her husband ; he governed Athens ; Athens, B B 370 APPENDIX. Greece ; and Greece, the world : therefore the child of Themistocles governed the world. 8^. He who calls you a man speaks truly : he who calls you a fool, calls you a man : therefore he who calls you a fool speaks truly. 83. Warm countries alone produce wines: Spain is a warm country: therefore Spain produces wines. 84. It is an intensely cold climate that is sufficient to freeze Quicksilver: the climate of Siberia is sufficient to freeze Quicksilver : therefore the climate of Siberia is intensely cold. 85. Mistleto of the oak is a vegetable excrescence which is not a plant ; and every vegetable excrescence which is not a plant, is possessed of magical virtues : therefore Mistleto of the oak is possessed of magical virtues. 86. If the hour-hand of a clock be any distance (suppose a foot) before the minute-hand, this last, though moving twelve times faster, can never overtake the other ; for while the minute-hand is moving over those twelve inches, the hour-hand will have moved over one inch ; so that they will then be an inch apart; and while the minute-hand is moving over that one inch, the hour-hand will have moved over 1-y inch, so that it will still be a-head; and again, while the minute-hand is passing over that space of ~ inch, which now divides them, the hour-hand will pass over -—-^ inch; so that it will still be a-head, though the distance between the two is diminished ; ^c. ^c. ^c, and thus it is plain we may go on for ever : therefore the minute-hand can never overtake the hour-hand. [This is one of the sophistical puzzles noticed by Aldrich (the moving bodies being Achilles and a Tortoise;) but he is not happy in his attempt at a solution. He proposes to remove the difficulty by demonstrating that, in a certain given time, Achilles wotdd over- take the Tortoise: as if any one had ever doubted that. The very problem proposed is to surmount the difficulty of a seeming demonstration of a thing palpably impossible ; to show that it is palpably impossible, is no solution of the problem. EXAMPLES. 371 I have heard the present example adduced as a proof that the pretensions of Logic are futile, since (it was said) the most perfect logical demonstration may lead from true premises to an absurd conclusion. The reverse is the truth : the example before us furnishes a confirmation of the utility of an acquaintance with the syllogistic form ; in which form the pretended demon- stration in question cannot possibly be exhibited. An attempt to do so will evince the utter want of connection between the premises and the con- clusion.] 87. Theft is a crime : theft was encouraged by the laws of Sparta : therefore the laws of Sparta encouraged crime. 88. Every hen comes from an egg : every egg comes from a hen : therefore every egg comes from an egg. 89. Jupiter was the son of Saturn : therefore the son of Jupiter was the grandson of Saturn. 90. All cold is to be expelled by heat : this person's dis- order is a cold : therefore it is to be expelled by heat. 91. Wine is a stimulant : therefore in a case where stimu- lants are hurtful, wine is hurtful. 92. Opium is a poison ; but physicians advise some of their patients to take Opium : therefore physicians advise some of their patients to take poison. 93. What we eat grew in the fields ; loaves of bread are what we eat : therefore loaves of bread grew in the fields. 94. Animal-food may be entirely dispensed with : (as is shown by the practice of the Brahmins and of some monks ;) and vegetable-food may be entirely dispensed with (as is plain from the example of the Esquimaux and others ;) but all food consists of animal-food and vegetable-food: there- fore all food may be dispensed with. 95. No trifling business will enrich those engaged in it : a mining speculation is no trifling business : therefore a min- ing speculation will enrich those engaged in it. 96. He who is most hungry eats most : he who eats least is most hungry: therefore he who eats least eats most. [See Aldrich's Compendium : Fallacias : where this is rightly solved.] 97. Whatever body is in motion must move either in BB 2 372 APPENDIX. the place where it is, or in a place where it is not : neither of these is possible : therefore there is no such thing as motion. [In this instance, as well as in the one lately noticed, Aldrich mistakes the character of the difficulty : which is, not to prove the truth of that which is self-evident, but to explain an apparent demonstration militat- ing against that which nevertheless no one ever doubted. He says in this case, "solvitur ambulando;" but (pace tanti viri) this is no solution at all, but is the very thing which constitutes the difficulty in question ; for it is precisely because we know the possibility of motion, that a seeming proof of its impossibility produces perplexity. — See Introduction, p. 4.] 98. All vegetables grow most in the increase of the moon : hair is a vegetable : therefore hair grows most in the increase of the inoon. 99. Most of the studies pursued at Oxford conduce to the improvement of the mind : all the works of the most celebrated ancients are among the studies pursued at Ox- ford : therefore some of the works of the most celebrated ancients conduce to the improvement of the mind. 100. Some poisons are vegetable : no poisons are use- ful drugs : therefore some useful drugs are not vegetable. 101. A theory will speedily be exploded, if false, which appeals to the evidence of observation and experiment: Craniology appeals to this evidence : therefore, if Cranio- logy be a false theory, it will speedily be exploded. [Let the probability of one of these premises be _7_ ; and of the other ± : Query. ■ What is the probability of the conclusion ?] 102. Wilkes was a favourite with the populace ; he who is a favourite with the populace must understand how to manage them; he who understands how to manage them, must be well acquainted with their character: he who is well acquainted with their character, must hold them in contempt: therefore Wilkes must have held the populace in contempt. 103. To discover whether man has any moral sense, he should be viewed in that state in which all his faculties EXAMPLES. 373 are most fully developed; the civilized state is that in which all man's faculties are most fully developed: there- fore, to discover whether man has any moral sense, he should be viewed in a civilized state. 104. Revenge, Robbery, Adultery, Infanticide, ^c. have been countenanced by public opinion in several coun- tries : all the crimes we know of are Revenge, Robbery, Adultery, Infanticide, ^c. : therefore, all the crimes we know of have been countenanced by public opinion in several countries. 105. No soldiers should be brought into the field who are not well qualified to perform their part. None but veterans are well qualified to perform their part. None but veterans should be brought into the field. 106. A monopoly of the sugar-refining business is bene- ficial to sugar-refiners : and of the corn-trade to corn- growers : and of the silk-manufacture to silk-weavers, ^c. §"€. ; and thus each class of men are benefited by some restrictions. Now all these classes of men make up the whole community: therefore a system of restrictions is beneficial to the community. [-SteChap. iii. § ii.] 107. There are two kinds of things which we ought not to fret about : what we can help, and what we cannot. [To be stated as a Dilemma.] APPENDIX. No. III. PRAXIS OF LOGICAL ANALYSIS. Some have expressed much contempt for the mode in which Logic is usually taught, and in which students are examined in it, as comprising no more than a mere enu- meration of technical rules, and perhaps an application of them to the simplest examples, exhibited in a form already syllogistic, or nearly so. That such a description, if in- tended to be universal, is not correct, I am perfectly certain; though, hitherto, the indiscriminate requisition of Logic from all candidates for a Degree, has confined both lectures and examinations, in a greater degree than is desirable, to this elementary character. But the student who wishes to acquire, and to show that he has acquired, not only the elementary rules, but a facility of applying them in prac- tice, should proceed from the study of such examples as the foregoing, to exercise himself in analysing logically, according to the rules here given, and somewhat in the manner of the subjoined specimen, some of Euclid's de- monstrations, — various portions of Aristotle's Works, — the opening of Warburton's " Divine Legation," (which ex- hibits the arguments in a form very nearly syllogistic) — several parts of Chillingworth's Defence of Protestantism, — the concluding part of Paley's Horae Paulinae, — Leslie's Method with the Deists, — various portions of A. Smith's Wealth of Nations, — and other argumentative Works on the most dissimilar subjects. The latter part of § L PRAXIS OF LOGICAL ANALYSIS. 375 Chap. V. of the Dissertation on the Province of Reason- ing, will furnish a convenient subject of a short analysis. A student who should prepare himself, in this manner, in one or more such books, and present himself for this kind of examination in them, would furnish a good test for ascertaining his proficiency in practical Logic. As the rules of Logic apply to arguments only after they have been exhibited at full length in the bare elementary form, it may be useful to subjoin some remarks on the mode of analysing and reducing to that form, any train of argument that may be presented to us : since this must in general be the first step taken in an attempt to apply logical rules. * First then, of whatever length the reasoning may be, whether treatise, chapter, or paragraph, begin with the concluding assertion ; — not necessarily the last sentence expressed, but the last point established; — and this whe- ther it be formally enunciated, or left to be understood. Then, tracing the reasoning backwards, observe on what ground that assertion is made. The assertion will be your Conclusion ; the ground on which it rests, your Pre- mises. The whole Syllogism thus obtained may be tried by the rules of Logic. If no incorrectness appear in this syllogism, proceed to take the premises separately, and pursue with each the same plan as with the conclusion you first stated. A premiss must have been used as such, either because it required no proof, or because it had been proved. If it have not been proved, consider whether it be so self-evident as to have needed no proof. If it have been proved, you must regard * These directions are, in substance, and nearly, in words, extracted from the Preface to Hinds's abridged Introduction to Logic. 376 apps:ndix. it as a conclusion derived from other assertions which are premises to it: so that the process with which you set out will be repeated ; mz. to observe on what grounds the assertion rests, to state these as premises, and to apply the proper rules to the syllogism thus obtained. Having satisfied yourself of the correctness of this, proceed, as before, to state its premises, if needful, as conclusions de- rived from other assertions. And thus the analysis will go on (if the whole chain of argument be correct) till you arrive at the premises with which the whole commences; which of course should be assertions requiring no proof, or, if the chain be any where faulty, the analysis will pro- ceed till you come to some proposition, either assumed as self-evident, though requiring proof, or incorrectly deduced from other assertions.* It will often happen that the same assertion will have been proved by many different arguments ; and then, the inquiry into the truth of the premises will branch out ac- cordingly. In mathematical or other demonstrative rea- * Many students probably will find it a very clear and convenient mode of exhibiting the logical analysis of a course of argument, to draw it out in the form of a Tree, or Logical Division ; thus, [Ultimate Conclusion.] ZisX, proved by ' 'Y is X, proved by Zis Y, proved by ' AisY, [suppose admitted.] Zis A, proved by &c. the argument that B is X, Y is B &c. &c. and by argument th? that CisX, &c. Y is C, " &c. PRAXIS OF LOGICAL ANALYSIS. 377 soiling, this will of course never take place, since absolute certainty admits of no increase: and if, as is often the case, the same truth admits of several different demonstra- tions, we select the simplest and clearest, and discard the rest. But in probable reasoning there is often a Cumula- tion of arguments, each proving the same conclusion ; i» e, each proving it to be probable. In such cases therefore you will have first to try each argument separately; and should each of them establish the conclusion as in some degree probable, you will then have to calculate the aggre- gate probability. In this calculation Logic only so far assists as it enables us to place the several items of probability in the most convenient form. As the degree of probability of each proposition that is assmned^ is a point to be determined by the reasoner's own sagacity and experience as to the matter in hand, so, the degree of probability of each con- clusion, (given, that of each of its premises,) * and also the collective probability resulting from several different arguments all tending to the same conclusion, is an arith- metical question. But the assistance afforded by logical rules in clearly stating the several items so as to prepare the way for the other operations, will not be thought lightly of by any who have observed the confusion of thought and the fallacy, which have often been introduced through the want of such a statement. Example of Analysis applied to the first part ofPaleys Evidences, The ultimate Conclusion, that " The Christian Religion came from God" is made to rest (as far as " the direct historical evidence" is concerned) on these two premises; « Sec Fallacies, § 14, near the end. 378 APPENDIX. That "A Religion attested by Miracles, is from God;" and that " The Christian Religion is so attested." Of these two premises, it should be remarked, the Minor seems to have been admitted, while the Major was denied, by the unbelievers of old : whereas at present the case is reversed.* Paley's argument therefore goes to establish the Minor premiss, about which alone, in these days, there is likely to be any question. He states with this view, two propositions : vh. Prop. I. — "That there is satisfactory evidence, that many, pro- fessing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily under- gone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts ; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct." Prop. II. — " That there is not satisfactory evidence, that persons pretending to be original witnesses of any other similar miracles, have acted in the same manner, in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts." Of these two propositions the latter, it will easily be perceived, is the Major premiss, stated as the converse hy * It is clear from the fragments remaining of the ancient arguments against Christianity, and the allusions to them in Christian writers, and also from the Jewish accounts of the life of Jesus which are still extant, that the original opponents of Christianity admitted that miracles were wrought, but denied that they proved the divine origin of the religion, and attributed them to Magic. This concession, in persons living so much nearer to the times assigned to the miracles, should be noticed as an important evidence ; for, credulous as men were in those days respect- ing magic, they would hardly have resorted to this explanation, unless some, at least plausible, evidence for the miracles had been adduced. And they could not but be sensible that to prove (had that been possible) the pretended miracles to be impostures, would have been the most deci- sive course ; since thai would at once have (disproved the religion. PRAXIS OF LOGICAL ANALYSIS. 379 Negation (Book II. Chap. ii. § 4) of a universal affirmative ; the former proposition is the Minor. As a Syllogism in Barbara therefore, the whole will stand thus : " All miracles attested by such and such evidence, are worthy of credit :" (by conversion, ''none which are not worthy of credit are so attested.") " The Christian miracles are attested by such and such evi- dence :" Therefore "they are worthy of credit." The Minor premiss is first proved by being taken as several distinct ones, each of which is separately esta- blished. — See Book II. Chap. iv. § 1. I. It is proved that the first propagators of Christianity suffered; by showing 1st. A priori, from the nature of the case, that they were likely to suffer: [because they were preachers of a religion unexpected and unwelcome: 1. to the Jews; and 2. to Gentiles.] 2d. From profane testimony. 3d. From the testimony of Christian writings. [And here comes in the proof of one of the premises of this last argument; viis. the proof of the credibility, as to this point at least, of the Christian Writings.] These arguments are cumulative ; i. e. each separately goes to establish the probability of the one common conclu- sion, that " the first propagators of Christianity suffered." By similar arguments it is shown that their sufferings were such as they voluntarily exposed themselves to. II. It is proved that " What they suffered for was a miraculous story ; " by 1st. The nature of the case ; They could have had nothing but miracles on which to rest the claims of the new religion. 380 APPENDIX. 2d. By allusions to miracles, particularly to the Resur- rection, both in Christian and in Profane Writers, as the evidence on which the religion rested. The same course of argument goes to show that the miracles in attestation of which they suffered were such as they professed to have witnessed. These arguments again are cumulative. III. It is proved that " The miracles thus attested are what we call the Christian miracles;" in other words, that the story was, in the main, that which we have now in the Christian Scriptures; by § 1st. The nature of the case ; viz. that it is improbable the original story should have completely died away, and a substantially new one have occupied its place ; § 2d. by The incidental allusions of ancient writers, both Christian and profane, to accounts agreeing with those of our Scriptures, as the ones then received ; § 3d. by The credibility of our Historical Scriptures : This is established by several distinct arguments, each sepa- rately tending to show that these books were, from the earliest ages of Christianity, well known and carefully preserved among Christians : viz. § i. They were quoted by ancient Christian writers, § ii. with peculiar respect. § iii. Collected into a distinct volume, and § iv. distinguished by appropriate names and titles of respect. § V. Publicly read and expounded, and § vi. had commentaries, Sfc. written on them: §vii. Were received by Christians of different sects; %c. ^c* * For some important remarks respecting the different ways in which this part of the argument is presented to different persons, See " Hinds on Inspiration," p. 30 — 46. PRAXIS OF LOGICAL ANALYSIS. 381 The latter part of the first main proposition, branches off into two; vi^. 1st, that the early Christians submitted to new rules of conduct ; 2'd, that they did so, in consequence of their belief in miracles wrought before them. Each of these is established in various parts of the above course of argument, and by similar premises ; viz. the nature of the case, — the accounts of heathen writers, — and the testimony of the Christian Scriptures, 8^c. The Major premiss, that *' Miracles thus attested are worthy of credit," * which must be combined with the former, in order to establish the conclusion, that " the Christian miracles are worthy of credit," is next to be established. Previously to his entering on the second main propo- sition, (which I have stated to be the Converse by nega- tion of this Major premiss) he draws his conclusion (Ch. x. Part I.) from the Minor premiss, in combination with the Major, resting that Major on § 1st. The a priori improbability that a false story should have been thus attested : viss. " If it be so, the religion must be true. These men could not be deceivers. By only not bearing testimony, they might have avoided all these sufferings, and have lived quietly. Would men in such circumstances pretend to have seen what they never saw ; assert facts which they had no knowledge of; go about lying, to teach virtue ; and, though not only convinced of Christ's being an impostor, but having seen the success of his imposture in his crucifixion, yet persist in carrying it on ; and so persist, as to bring upon themselves, for nothing, and with a full knowledge of the consequence, enmity and hatred, danger and death ? " * This is the ultimate conclusion deduced from the premiss, that " it is attested by real Miracles;" which, in the present day, comes to the same thing : since those for whom he is writing are ready at once to admit the truth of the religion, if convinced of the reality of the miracles. 382 APPENDIX. 2d. That no false story of Miracles is likeli/ to be so attested, is again proved, from the premiss that " no false story of miracles ever has been so attested ; " and this premiss again is proved in the form of a propo- sition vrhich includes it; viz. that " No other miraculous story whatever is so attested." § This assertion again, bifurcates; vh. it is proved respecting the several stories that are likely to be, or that have been adduced, as parallel to the Christian, that either 1 §. They are not so attested; or 2 §. They are not properly miraculous ; i. e. that admit- ting the veracity of the narrator, it does not follovir that any miracle took place; as in cases that may be explained hy false perceptions, — accidents, 2^c. In this way the learner may proceed to analyze the rest of the work, and to fill up the details of those parts of the argument which I have but slightly touched upon.* * When the Student considers that this is only one out of many branches of evidence, all tending to the same point, and yet that there have been intelligent men who have held out against them all, he may be apt to suspect either that there must be some flaw in these arguments which he is unable to detect, or else, that there must be much stronger arguments on the other side than he has ever met with. To enter into a discussion of the various causes leading to infidelity would be unsuitable to this occasion ; but I will notice one, as being more especially connected with the subject of this work, and as being very generally overlooked. ''In no other instance perhaps," (says Dr. Haw- kins, in his valuable Essay on Tradition) " besides that of Religion, do men commit the very illogical mistake, of first canvassing all the objections against any particular system whose pretensions to truth they would ex- amine, before they consider the direct arguments in its favour.'* (p. 82.) But why, it may be asked, c?o they make such a mistake in this case ? An answer, which I think would apply to a large proportion of such persons, is this : Because a man having been brought up in a Christian country, has lived perhaps among such as have been accustomed from their infancy to take for granted the tnith of their religion, and even to PRAXIS OF LOGICAL ANALYSIS. 383 It will be observed that to avoid unnecessary prolixity, I have in most of the above syllogisms suppressed one regard an uninquiring assent as a mark of commendable faith; and hence he has probably never even thought of proposing to himself the question, — Why should I receive Christianity as a divine revelation? Christianity being nothing new to him, he is not stimulated to seek reasons for believing it, till he finds it controverted. And when it is controverted, — when an opponent urges — How do you reconcile this, and that, and the other, with the idea of a divine revelation ? these objections strike by their novelty^ — by their being opposed to what is generally received. He is thus excited to inquiry ; which he sets about, naturally enough, but very unwisely, by seeking for answers to all these objec- tions : and fancies that unless they can all be satisfactorily solved, he ought not to receive the religion. " As if," (says the Author already cited) " there could not be truth, and truth supported by irrefragable arguments, and yet at the same time obnoxious to objections, numerous, plausible, and by no means easy of solution. There are objections (said Dr. Johnson) against a 'plenum and objections against a vacuum; but one of them must be true." He adds, that " sensible men, really de- sirous of discovering the truth, will perceive that reason directs them to examine first the argument in favour of that side of the question, where the first presumption of truth appears. And the presumption is mani- festly in favour of that religious creed already adopted by the country Their very earliest inquiry therefore must be into the direct arguments for the authority of that book on which their country rests its religion." But reasonable as such a procedure is, there is, as I have said, a strong temptation, and one which should be carefully guarded against, to adopt the opposite course ; — to attend first to the objections which are brought against what is established, and which, for that very reason, rouse the mind from a state of apathy. When Christianity was first preached, the state of things was reversed. " Seeing that all these things cannot he spoken against, ye ought to be quiet,'' was a sentiment which favoured an indolent acquiescence in the old pagan worship. The stimulus of novelty was all on the side of those who came to overthrow this, by a new religion. The first inquiry of any one who at all attended to the subject, must have been, not, — What are the objections to Christianity ? — but, On what grounds do these men call on me to receive them as divine messengers ? And the same appears to be the case with the Polynesians among whom our Mission- aries are labouring : they begin by inquiring, — Why should we receive this relio-ion? and those of them accordingly who have embraced it, appear to be Christians on much more rational and deliberate conviction 384 APPENDIX. premiss, which the learner will be able easily to supply for himself. E. G. In the early part of this analysis it will easily be seen, that the first of the series of cumulative arguments to prove that the propagators of Christianity did suffer, would at full length stand thus; " Whoever propagated a religion unwelcome to the Jews and to the Gentiles, was likely to suffer ; The Apostles did this ; Therefore they were likely to suffer," ^c. 8fc. It is also to be observed, that the same proposition used in different syllogisms may require to be differently ex- pressed, by a substitution of some equivalent, in order to render the argument in each formally correct. This of course is always allowable, provided the exact meaning be preserved : e. g. if the proposition be, " The persons who attested the Christian miracles underwent sufferings in attes- tation of them," I am authorized to state the same assertion in a different form, thus, " The Christian miracles are attested by men who suffered in attestation of their reality," ^c. Great care howevei* should be used to avoid being mis- led by the substitution of one proposition for another, when the two are not (though perhaps they sound so) really equi- valent, so that the one warrants the assumption of the other. Lastly, the learner is referred to the Supplement to Chap. iii. § 1, p. 95, where I have treated of the statement of a proposition as several distinct ones, each implying all the rest, but differing in the division of the Predicate from the Subject. Of this procedure the above analysis affords an instance. than many among us, even of those who in general maturity of intellect and civilization, are advanced considerably beyond those Islanders. I am not depreciating the inestimable advantages of a religious educa- tion ; but, pointing out the peculiar temptations which accompany it. The Jews and Pagans had, in their early prejudices, greater difficulties to surmount, than ours ; but they were difficulties of a different kind. INDEX PRINCIPAL TECHNICAL TERMS. Absolute termsj page 123. Abstraction. — The act of " drawing off" in thought, and attend- ing to separately, some portion of an object presented to the mind, 128. Abstract terms, 124. Accident. — In its widest technical sense, anything that is attri- buted to another, and can only be conceived as belonging to some substance (in which sense it is opposed to " Sub- stance : ") in its narrower and more properly logical sense, a Predicable which may be present or absent, the essence of the Species remaining the same, 134. Accidental Definition. — A definition which assigns the Proper- ties of a Species, or the Accidents of an Individual; it is otherwise called a Description, 140. Affirmative — denotes the quality of a Proposition which asserts the agreement of the Predicate with the Subject, 62. Analogous. — A term is so called whose single signification applies with unequal propriety to more than one object, 122, 187. Antecedent. — That part of a Conditional Proposition on which the other depends, 111. Apprehension (simple.) — The operation of the mind by which we mentally perceive or form a notion of some object, 54. c c 386 INDEX. Argument, — An expression in which, from something laid down as granted, something else is deduced, 73. Categorematic. — A word is so called which may by itself be employed as a Term, 58. Categorical Proposition — is one which affirms or denies a Pre- dicate of a Subject, absolutely, and without any hypothesis, 62. Common term — is one which is applicable in the same sense to more than one individual object, 47, 60, 123. Compatible terms, 124. Conclusion. — That Proposition which is inferred from the Pre- mises of an Argument, 25, 74. Concrete term, 124. Conditional Proposition — is one which asserts the dependence of one categorical Proposition on another. A conditional Syllogism is one in which the reasoning depends on such a Proposition, 111. Consequent. — That part of a conditional Proposition which depends on the other. (Consequens), 111. Consequence. — The connection between the Antecedent and Consequent of a conditional Proposition. (Consequentia), 111. Contingent. — The matter of a Proposition is so called when the terms of it in part agree, and in part disagree, 64. Contradictory Propositions — are those which, having the sam& terms, differ both in Quantity and Quality, 90. Contrary Propositions — are two universals, affirmative and negative, with the same terms, 68. Contrary terms, 127- Converse— 70' Conversion of a Proposition — ^is the transposition of the terms, so that the subject is made the Predicate, and vice versa, 70. Copula. — That part of a Proposition which affirms or denies the Predicate of the Subject; viz. is, or is not^ expressed or implied, 57. Dejmite terms, 126. INDEX. 387 Definition, — An expression explanatory of that which is defined, i. e. separated, as by a boundary, from everything else, 139. Description. — An accidental Definition, 140. Difference (Differentia.) — The formal or distinguishing part of the essence, of a Species, 1 32. Dilemma. — A complex kind of conditional syllogism, having more than one Antecedent in the Major Premiss, and a disjunctive Minor, 106. Discourse. — The third operation of the mind. Reasoning, 55. Disjunctive Proposition — is one which consists of two or more categoricals, so stated as to imply that some one of them must be true. A syllogism is called disjunctive, the rea- soning of which turns on such a proposition, 104. Distributed — is applied to a Term that is employed in its full extent, so as to comprehend all its significates, — every- thing to which it is applicable, 44, 76. Division, logical — is the distinct enumeration of several things signified by a common name ; and it is so called metapho- rically, from its being analogous to the (real and properly- called) division of a whole into its parts, 136. Enthymeme. — An argument having one Premiss expressed, and the other understood, 115. Equivocal. — A Term is defined to be equivocal whose different significations apply equally to several objects. Strictly speaking, there is hardly a word in any language which may not be regarded as, in this sense, equivocal ; but the title is usually applied only in any case where a word is employed equivocally ; e. g. where the middle term is used in different senses in the two Premises ; or where a Pro- position is liable to be understood in various senses, accord- ing to the various meanings of one of its terms, 183. Essential Definition — is one which assigns, not the Properties or Accidents of the thing defined, but what are regarded as its essential parts, whether physical or logical, 139. Extreme. — The Subject and Predicate of a Proposition are called its Extremes or Terms, being, as it were, the two boun- 388 INDEX. daries, having the copula (in regular order) placed between them. In speaking of a syllogism, the word is often under- stood to imply the extremes of the Conclusion, 57. Fallacy. — Any argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not, 146. False — in its strict sense, denotes the quality of a Proposition which states something not as it is, 63, 342. Figure of a Syllogism — denotes a certain situation of its middle term in reference to the Extremes of the Conclusion — The Major and Minor terms, 83. Generalization. — The act of comprehending under a common name several objects agreeing in some point which we abstract from each of them, and which that common name serves to indicate, 128. Genus. — A Predicable which is considered as the material part of the Species of which it is affirmed, 129. Hypothetical Proposition — is one which asserts not absolutely, but under an hypothesis, indicated by a conjunction. An hypothetical Syllogism is one of which the reasoning depends on such a proposition, 100. Illative Conversion — is that in which the truth of the Converse follows from the truth of the Exposita, or Proposition given, 70. Impossible. — The Matter of a Proposition is so called when the extremes altogether disagree, 68 — Ambiguity of, 311. Indefinite Proposition — is one which has for its Subject a Com- mon term without any sign to indicate distribution or non-distribution, 64. Indefinite terms, 126. Individual. — An object which is, in the strict and primary sense, one, and consequently cannot be logically divided; whence the name, 136. Induction. — A kind of argument which infers, respecting a whole class, what has been ascertained respecting one or more individuals of that class, 228. INDEX. 389 Infer.- — To draw a conclusion from granted premises, 266. — See Prove. Injima Species — is that which is not subdivided, except into individuals, 132. Inseparable accident — is that which cannot be separated from the individual it belongs to, though it may from the Species, 134. Judgment. — The second operation of the mind, wherein we pro- nounce mentally on the agreement and disagreement of two of the notions obtained by simple Apprehension, 54. Logical definition — is that which assigns the Genus and Diffe- rence of the Species defined, 139. Major term of a Syllogism — is the Predicate of the conclusion. The Major Premiss is the one which contains the Major term. In Hypothetical Syllogisms, the Hypothetical Pre- miss is called the Major, 78, 101. Middle term of a categorical Syllogism — is that with which the two extremes of the conclusion are separately compared, 78, 83. Minor term of a categorical Syllogism — is the subject of the conclusion. The Minor Premiss is that which contains the Minor term. In Hypothetical Syllogisms, the Categorical Premiss is called the Minor, 78, 101. Modal categorical proposition — is one which asserts that the Predicate exists in the Subject in a certain mode or manner, 62, 95. Mood of a categorical Syllogism — is the designation of its three propositions, in the order in which they stand, according to their quantity and quality, 81. Necessary matter of a proposition — is the essential or invariable agreement of its terms, 68. — ^Necessary, ambiguity of, 320. Nefration — conversion by (otherwise called conversion by contra- position), 71. Netratwe categorical proposition — is one which asserts the dis- agreement of its extremes, 62. Negative terms, 125. 390 INDEX. Nominal Definition — is one which explains only the meaning of the term defined, and nothing more of the nature of the thing signified by that Term than is implied by the Term itself to every one who understands the meaning of it, 141, 253. Opposed. — Two propositions are said to be opposed to each other, when having the same Subject and Predicate, they differ either in quantity or quality, or both, 6Q. Opposition of tenns, 126. Part — logically, Species are called Parts of the Genus they come under, and individuals, parts of the Species ; really, the Genus is a Part of the Species, and the Species, of the Individual, 137. Particular proposition — is one in which the Predicate is affirmed or denied of some part only of the subject, 63. Per Accidens. — Conversion of a proposition is so called when the Quantity is changed, 71. Physical definition — is that which assigns the parts into which the thing defined can be actually divided, 140. Positive terms, 125. Predicate of a proposition — is that Term which is affirmed or denied of the other, 57. Predicable. — A Term which can be affirmatively predicated of several others, 130. Premiss. — ^A proposition employed to establish a certain conclu- sion, 74. Privative terms, 125. Probable arguments, 96, 261. Property. — A Predicable which denotes something essentially conjoined to the essence of the Species, 132. Proposition. — A sentence which asserts, i.e. affirms or denies, 61. Prove. — To adduce Premises which establish the truth of a certain conclusion, 266. Proximum Genus of any Species — is the nearest or least remote to which it can be referred, 132. INDEX. 391 Pure categorical proposition — is one which asserts simply that the Predicate is, or is not, contained in the Subject, 62, 95. Real definition — is one which explains the nature of the thing defined ; viz. either the whole nature of it (as in Mathema- tics), or else something beyond what is necessarily under- stood by the Term, 141, 253. References — fallacy of, 206. Relative terms, 123. Quality of a Proposition — is its affirming or denying. This is the Quality of the expression^ which is, in Logic, the essen- tial circumstance. The Quality of the matter, is, its being true or false ; which is, in Logic, accidental, being essential only in respect of the subject-matter treated of, 62. Quantity of a Proposition — ^is the extent in which its subject is taken ; viz. to stand for the whole, or for a part only of its Significates, 63. Question. — That which is to be established as a Conclusion stated in an interrogative form, 73. Second intention of a term, 185. Separable accident — ^is one which may be separated from the _ individual, 134. Significate. — The several things signified by a Common Term are its Significates (Significata), 63. Singular term — ^is one which stands for one individual. A Sin- gular proposition is one which has for its Subject either a Singular term, or a Common term limited to one individual by a singular sign, e.g. "This," 60, 64, 123. Sorites. — An abridged form of stating a series of Syllogisms, of which the Conclusion of each is a Premiss of the succeed- ing, 116. Species, — A predicate which is considered as expressing the whole essence of the individuals of which it is affirmed, 129. — ^peculiar sense of, in Natural History, 284. Subaltern Species and Genus — is that which is both a Species of some higher Genus, and a Genus in respect of the Species into which it is divided. Subaltern opposition, is between 392 INDEX. a Universal and a Particular of the same Quality. Of these, the Universal is the Subaltemant, and the Particular the Subalternate, 68, 132. Suhcontrary opposition — is between two particulars, the affir- mative and the negative, 68. Subject of a proposition — is that term of which the other is affirmed or denied, 57. Summum Genus — is that which is not considered as a Species of any higher Genus, 132. Syllogism. — An argument expressed in strict logical form ; viz. so that its conclusiveness is manifest firom the structure of the expression alone, without any regard to the meaning of the Terms, 73. Syncategorematic words — are such as cannot singly express a Term, but only a part of a Term, 58. Term. — The Subject or Predicate of a Proposition, 57. True Proposition — is one which states what really is, 63. Universal Proposition — is one whose Predicate is affirmed or denied of the whole of the Subject, 63. Univocal. — A Common term is called Univocal in respect of those things to which it is applicable in the same signifi- cation, 122. THE END. PRINTED liY 11. CLAY, HUE AD-STRKt I -lilLL. / %56 8 7 9 GENERAL UBRftBY-U.C. BERKELEY